effect, particularly as similar evidence was admitted without objection or claim of error. Point two is denied. Conclusion The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. All concur. 1 . We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Guinan, 665 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Mo. banc 1984). 2 . The testimony had been cleansed of any references that might suggest it had been taken from Williams during a prior trial. The testimony was referred to as having been taken in a "prior proceeding.” 3 . The ability to use a defendant's prior voluntary testimony in a subsequent proceeding as an admission must be distinguished, however, from the ability to compel a defendant to testify in a subsequent proceeding. State ex rel. Imboden v. Romines, 760 S.W.2d 130, 134 (Mo.App. E.D.1988) (<HOLDING>). " ‘It is settled by the overwhelming weight
holding that where a witness who testifies under oath and is subject to crossexamination in a prior state court proceeding explicitly refuses to answer the same questions at trial the refusal to answer is inconsistent with his prior testimony holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding holding that it is elementary that one may not be a witness and a judge in the same proceeding and remanding for a new hearing with a different judge punctuation omitted holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding