unavailability for trial with the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, the defendant waives his rights under the Confrontation Clause to object to the admission of the absent witness’s hearsay statements,” citing Reynolds); Edwards, 444 Mass, at 540, 830 N.E.2d at 170 (requiring a showing that “the defendant acted with the intent to procure the witness’s unavailability); State v. Wright, 701 N.W.2d 802, 815 (Minn. 2005) (citing Crawford and noting that Minnesota has consistently applied the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule since at least 1980, but requires proof that the defendant intended to procure the witness’s unavailability and that his conduct did, in fact, procure the witness’s unavailability); State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 136 N.M. 309, 314, 98 P.3d 699, 704 (2004) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wiggins, Nos. 99 CRS 46567, 99 CRS
holding that the state must show that the defendant intended or was motivated in part to procure a witnesss unavailability holding the doctrine applicable where the defendant acted with the intent to procure the witnesss unavailability holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence