into consideration certain matters. Among those was the ‘interest, if any’ the witness had in the result of the trial. This argument, in our opinion, constitutes a reference to the fact that of all the wit nesses in the case it is the defendant who has the most to gain if his testimony is accepted by the jury; that, therefore, his credibility is subject to close scrutiny. While the argument could have been couched in more temperate terms and with less generalization, the courts of this state have allowed prosecutors great latitude in final argument and we conclude that while this line of argument comes close to the line, it does not, in the context in which it was made, constitute prejudicial error.” Id.(emphasis added). See also State v. Francis, 997 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (<HOLDING>). Just as in Henderson, the jury here was
holding that defendants who chose to testify on their own behalf are subject to contradiction and impeachment as would be any other witness recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination holding that the right to testify on ones own behalf does not include the right to lie