In this appeal from his conviction of burglary, the defendant's primary contention is that the trial court should have granted him a separate trial so as to permit his co-defendant to testify on his behalf. Held:
1. The availability of a co-defendant's testimony is a relevant factor for the trial court to consider upon a motion to sever. However, "[i]n order to have his motion . . . granted, . . . the defendant must show not only that his co-defendant will probably not testify at trial where he could cross-examine him or elicit the testimony desired, but also that the testimony of the co-defendant would tend to exculpate the defendant. The trial judge should also consider whether the co-defendant would be more likely to testify if they were tried separately. [Cits.]" Cain v. State, 235 Ga. 128
, 130 (218 SE2d 856
) (1975). The co-defendant did not testify at trial; however, at a hearing on the motion to sever, counsel indicated that he would refuse to testify even if separate trials were granted. This enumeration of error is consequently without merit.