People v. Coates

I dissent because the trial judge made no effort whatsoever to comply with the Barrows rule requiring a judge, before accepting a plea of guilty, to establish by “direct questioning” of the defendant “the crime and the participation therein of the person pleading guilty.”1

Our Court has repeatedly and consistently recognized that the Barrows rule is still viable.2 In many cases decided after Dunn, Stearns, and Winegar,3 we have reversed convictions because a plea of guilty was accepted without complying with the Barrows rule.4

*62Moreover, the trial judge in the present case could not have relied…