been careful, however, to emphasize that the rule applies only to situations where the judge testifies formally: The language of Rule 605 is unambiguous, and construing this rule according to rules of grammar and common usage leads to only one interpretation of the rule. The phrase “the judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial” means that the judge who is presiding over a proceeding may not “step down from the bench” and become a witness in the very same proceeding over which he is currently presiding. Hensarling, 829 S.W.2d at 171. See also Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 310 n. 9 (noting that Rule 605 circumscribes only that situation in which a trial judge would actually “step down from the bench” to become a witness); Hammond v. State, 799 S.W.2d 741, 747 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Whether or not the remarks under
holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify holding collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict not relevant holding that judge presiding at trial may not testify in that trial as witness holding that where court informed jurors that the defendant had escaped from custody the trial judge acted within his judicial capacity and did not testify  holding that information disclosed to jurors as a result of their presence at trial ie that the defendant did not testify did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of the rule 606b exception