With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". kept in both arm and leg chains because of previous disruptive behavior and his mental health history. The trial court itself concluded that such steps would be prudent in light of defendant’s mental health history, his recent actions, and the concerns expressed by defense counsel. Ultimately, defendant’s trial counsel withdrew his request for additional restraints and the trial court agreed. Nevertheless, at the outset of trial, it was clear that neither defendant’s trial counsel nor the trial court knew whether defendant would comport himself properly during trial in light of his mental illnesses. Even though defendant mostly did not 180, 626 S.E.2d 838 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1081, 164 L.Ed. 2d 537 (2006); State v. Snipes, 168 N.C. App. 525, 530, 608 S.E.2d 381, 384 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the State’s argument, the fact

A: holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where the defendant and trial court engaged in a lengthy voluntariness colloquy wherein the defendants responses were lucid and responsive and the defendants testimony was largely rational
B: holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present
C: holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights
D: holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where his testimony though somewhat rambling showed that he was accurately oriented regarding his present circumstances and knew the offenses with which he was charged citation omitted
D.