Rule 614. Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court.

 (a)  Calling by Court. Consistent with its function as an impartial arbiter, the court, with notice to the parties, may, on its own motion or at the suggestion of a party call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called.

 (b)  Interrogation by Court. Where the interest of justice so requires, the court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.

 (c)  Objections. An objection to the calling of a witness by the court must be made at the time of the court’s notice of an intention to call the witness. An objection to a question by the court must be made at the time the question is asked; when requested to do so, the court shall give the objecting party an opportunity to make objections out of the presence of the jury.

   Pa.R.E. 614(a) and (b) differ from F.R.E. 614(a) and (b) in several respects. The phrase relating to the court’s ‘‘function as an impartial arbiter’’ and the provision for notice have been added in Pa.R.E. 614(a), and the clause regarding ‘‘interest of justice’’ has been added in Pa.R.E. 614 (b). The additions dealing with the court as an ‘‘impartial arbiter’’ and the ‘‘interest of justice’’ are consistent with Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Crews, 429 Pa. 16, 239 A.2d 350 (1968); Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 424 Pa. 500, 230 A.2d 449 (1967); Commonwealth v. Myma, 278 Pa. 505, 123 A. 486 (1924).

   The provision requiring notice of the court’s intention to call a witness will give all parties an opportunity to be heard regarding the need for this, to object and to prepare for the cross-examination of the witness.

   Unlike F.R.E. 614(c), Pa.R.E. 614(c) does not permit objection to the court’s calling or interrogating witnesses ‘‘at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.’’ The Federal Rule permits this to relieve counsel of ‘‘the embarrassment’’ which might arise by objecting to the judge’s questions in the jury’s presence. F.R.E. 614(c) advisory committee notes. This rationale is comparable to the rationale for the ‘‘automatic’’ objection when the judge is called as a witness in F.R.E. 605. Under the Pennsylvania rules, the appropriate time for objecting to the calling of a witness by the court is when the court gives notice of its intention as required by Pa.R.E. 614(a). The court’s notice should always take place out of the presence of the jury. When the court’s questions to a witness are thought to be objectionable, the issue must be raised when the questions are put. In this way, the jury will not hear the evidence sought if the objection is sustained.