With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was not considered improper for a judge to testify in the same proceeding over which he was presiding. A judge presiding over a trial could testify as a witness in the case so long as he was sworn like any other witness. See Howell v. State, 146 Tex.Crim. 454, 455, 176 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Tex.Crim.App.1943). The current rules of evidence expressly forbid this practice. Rule 605 provides: The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point. Tex.R. Evid. 605. Whether Rule 605 is applicable at a motion for new trial hearing is not clear. The rule seems, on its face, to have no application outside of a “trial.” See Orion Enterprises, Inc. v. Pope, 927 S.W.2d 654, 660 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Criminal Appeals has on two

A: holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing
B: holding that venue in the district identified in  9 was mandatory
C: holding rule applicable to witness
D: holding a pretrial hearing on the waiver of counsel conducted three weeks before trial was the start of the trial stage where there were no changes between the pretrial hearing and the trial
A.