With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that the erroneous failure to hold a pretrial competency hearing can be cured by a meaningful retrospective hearing
C.