With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". consistently asked his attorneys to forgo any defense based on insanity or diminished capacity, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt and the consequent unavailability of any other effective defense. Woodland’s attorneys argue that his refusal to heed their sound legal advice is convincing proof of his inability to consult with counsel and, thus, his incompetence. We disagree. That the accused has the right to control the nature of his or her defense is well established. See State v. Wood, 648 P.2d 71, 91 (Utah 1982); see also Utah Const, art. I, § 12; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2540-41, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (identifying defendant’s 6th Amendment right to conduct his defense); State v. Penderville, 2 Utah 2d 281, 272 P.2d 195,199 (1954) (<HOLDING>). In Wood, for example, this court held that

A: holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second
B: holding that district court did not abuse discretion in declining to order new competency hearing based on defendants obstinate belligerent and obsessive behavior obsession with his own theories of defense distrust of his attorneys or desire to represent himself at trial
C: recognizing defendants right under utah constitution to control his defense and represent himself
D: recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense
C.