Opinion ID: 1910680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judicial Interrogation of Witnesses

Text: Fisher argues that because the presiding justice asked certain questions of Morton, Dr. Martyn Vickers, and Colomy, his right to impartiality on the part of the presiding justice was violated. Subject to the obvious caveat to maintain judicial impartiality, and not to assume the posture of an advocate ( State v. Haycock, Me., 296 A.2d 489 (1972)), a presiding justice may interrogate witnesses. Rule 614, M.R.Evid. Our review of the record discloses no objections by Fisher to the very limited interrogation of these witnesses by the presiding justice. None of the questions suggested that the justice had any opinion on the facts being elicited. Rather, the questions were aimed at clarification. Thus, even if objections had been seasonably made, they would have no merit.