to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.” Lovelace, 140 Idaho at 62, 90 P.3d at 287 (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)); see also I.C. § 18-210. The test for competency to stand trial is “[w]hether a defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him.” 601 (2006) (remanding for retrospective competency hearing at which defendant was to “have the burden to show incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence”); People v. Ary, 51 Cal.4th 510, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 431, 246 P.3d 322, 329 (2011) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 136, 181 L.Ed.2d 56 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Id. The general rule in other jurisdictions
holding that due process guarantees were not violated where a defendant was excluded from a witness competency hearing and noting that the hearing did not concern the witnesses substantive testimony holding that the erroneous failure to hold a pretrial competency hearing can be cured by a meaningful retrospective hearing holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial holding that once the feasibility of a retrospective hearing is determined requiring a criminal defendant to prove at a retrospective mental competency hearing that he was incompetent when tried earlier does not violate the defendants due process rights holding the statutory burden is on the defendant to prove he is incompetent to stand trial