manager and inserting the information gathered into the proceeding. Rule 605 states “A judge sitting at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point.” As with the substantially similar federal rule, see Reporter’s Notes, V.R.E. 605, the rationale behind Rule 605 is to preserve the appearance of a judge’s impartiality toward the parties to the litigation. 3 J. McLaughlin, et al., Weinstein’s Federal Evidence 2d § 605.02, at 605-5 (2d ed. 2009). We have recognized that when a judge acts as witness in a case over which she is presiding it may east a “suspicion of partiality or undue influence” upon the proceedings and could lead to “unseemly and embarrassing results.” State v. Bissell, 106 Vt. 80, 95, 170 A. 102, 109 (1934) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15. We are also aware that the testimony
holding appeal improper where trial judge did not rule upon question holding that the trial court should have granted the defendants motion for mistrial after it was revealed that a police officer who also was a prosecution witness had sat with several jurors during a lunch break even though the witness testified that he did not discuss the business of the case with the jurors recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared holding that judge who ruled on parents petition requesting that tubal ligation be performed on a minor was entitled to absolute immunity because the court upon which the judge sat was implicitly granted subject matter jurisdiction over such petitions recognizing grounds for mistrial had assistant judge testified in trial upon which he sat