With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court sincerely and eloquently expressed its concern to continue in such a fashion. Trial Court Opinion, 1/8/01, at 11-12. ¶ 14 In so ruling, Judge Knight relied heavily on the recitation of the law set forth in Leister, 712 A.2d at 335, wherein we stated: When judges doubt their own ability to adjudicate impartially, they should re-cuse themselves. Commonwealth v. Boyle, 498 Pa. 486, 490, 447 A.2d 250, 252 (1982); In Interest of Morrow, 583 A.2d at 819. Such an inability to be objective creates a manifest necessity for the declaration of a mistrial, particularly when a judge must exert the broad discretion that a bench trial demands. [Commonwealth v. Smith, 321 Pa.Super. 51, 467 A.2d 888 (1983)]. See also Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 369 Pa.Super. 145, 535 A.2d 91 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Id. 535 A.2d at 104. Even though the trial

A: holding that while a judge need not have declared a mistrial where his bias never infected the jury necessity required his recusal during sentencing to allow one without hint of animosity toward appellant to exercise such largely unfettered  discretion
B: holding that a prosecution for the same offense was barred by double jeopardy where a mistrial was declared without manifest necessity
C: holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion
D: holding recusal not required
A.