In Owen v. State 266 Ga. 312 (467 SE2d 325) (1996) the Court addressed whether a trial court had abused its discretion in denying a severance. Id. at 313-314 (2). There, none of the co-defendants took the stand. Id. at 313 (2). The appellant in Owen argued on appeal that she had been unable to cross-examine her alleged accomplice/co-defendant with regard to an antagonistic defense based on the opening statement of her co-defendant's counsel. Id. at 314 (2). Rejecting that argument, the Court gave its reasoning: No such evidence as mentioned during the opening statement was introduced at trial. Of course, the opening statement was not evidence (and the trial court so instructed the jury). Thus, it cannot be said that the co-defendant introduced an antagonistic defense; or that appellant was harmed by her inability to cross-examine her co-defendant. Id.