concurring specially.
[¶ 15] I reluctantly concur in the result reached by the majority. My reluctance arises out of my concern that in distinguishing this case from that of State v. Wester, 204 N.W.2d 109 (N.D.1973), we may appear to weaken what should be a bright-line standard. Although the facts of this case indeed may be distinguishable, the lesson of Wester is still valid, i.e., “the court ask each defendant in open court how he pleads to the specific offense for which he is charged, that the court require each defendant to enter his plea orally in open court and in the presence of his counsel, unless counsel is waived.” Id. at 118. The Court in Wester noted it had not yet adopted Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. This Court has since adopted those Rules of Criminal Procedure and compliance with Rule 11 should avoid the subjective review and analysis of the record in which the majority opinion must engage in order to affirm these criminal judgments. While I agree that ritualistic compliance with the rule is not required, when it comes to the final inquiry there should be no doubt whatsoever as to whether a defendant actually pled to the crime and whether that plea was guilty or not guilty. To that extent I believe the Wester standard remains well-founded. I trust the majority opinion does not suggest otherwise.
[¶ 16] MARY MUEHLEN MARING, J., concurs.