cessation of trial proceedings so that a mental evaluation can be performed. Though something the trial court should consider, United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1290 (4th Cir.1995), a suicide attempt by itself does not necessarily require an immediate competency evaluation, United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 304 (5th Cir.1995). Indeed, a suicide attempt does not unequivocally “demonstrate a failure to understand and appreciate the nature of the proceedings,” but may actually be a “quite lucid”—albeit tragic—“reaction to a very chilling situation.” Sanchez v. Gilmore, 189 F.3d 619, 623 (7th Cir.1999) (finding defendant’s attempted suicide did not require the trial court to immediately order a competency evaluation); State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 800 P.2d 1260, 1271 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Here, no pretrial evaluations found Smith
holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that the erroneous failure to hold a pretrial competency hearing can be cured by a meaningful retrospective hearing holding that a suicide attempt by itself does not automatically require a competency hearing holding that no hearing was required where there were written reports supporting defendants competency