in making decisions regarding competency, and we uphold those decisions so long as they are “supported by credible evidence and not clearly erroneous.” State v. Bean, 171 Vt. 290, 295, 762 A.2d 1259, 1262 (2000). Here, despite the majority’s conclusions to the contrary, the testimony provided on the record by the two transport officers was credible and, based on this evidence, it was within the trial court’s discretion to rule that defendant was competent to stand trial. Defendant has therefore failed to show prejudice. ¶ 35. Because defendant has not shown that any prejudice occurred from whatever errors the trial court may have made, any alleged violations of defendant’s due process rights are also harmless. See, e.g., State v. Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 489-90, 555 A.2d 369, 373-74 (1988) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, I would affirm the jury
holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim holding that when the prejudice from a sixth amendment violation is limited to the admission into evidence of the mental health testimony harmless error analysis applies holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis holding that the doctrine of harmless error applies when a due process violation is alleged and affirming a conviction when defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction