With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". received by the court concluded that appellant was fit to stand trial and was not impaired by mental defect. The findings in those evaluations were not contested by either party, therefore the court was not obligated to hold a hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-309(b) (Repl. 1997). Later, appellant did file a motion requesting the court to conduct a hearing, however the motion only asked that the State be precluded from seeking the death penalty because the December 7, 2004 report found appellant’s IQ to be 53. The motion was based on Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-618 (Repl. 1997), which states that “there is a rebuttable presumption of mental retardation when a defendant has an intelligence quotient of sixty-five (65) or below,” and, that “no defe (<HOLDING>). In addition, there is no error in the circuit

A: holding that a criminal defendant is presumed competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise
B: holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions
C: holding that the double jeopardy clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment
D: holding the statutory burden is on the defendant to prove he is incompetent to stand trial
A.