In what circumstances will the trial judge not order a competency hearing for a defendant who was unable to communicate during trial?

showing of "incompetence" that is "substantial" as a matter of law, the trial judge's decision not to order a competency hearing is entitled to great deference, because the trial court is in the best position to observe the defendant during trial.' " (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 559-560.)

Though Dao had some language barriers in communicating and with others comprehending her speech, the record contains no such extreme situation. There is no evidence that Dao suffered from physical conditions that rendered her so unable to assist her counsel or understand the proceedings that going forward with the trial violated her state and federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. The record contains no indication she was unconscious or semi-conscious during trial, or exhibited some altered perception of reality. Rather, it appears Dao took steps to avoid undergoing treatment that caused memory loss, or taking medication that caused her to "fall asleep." And, in all instances with the possible exception of Dao's allegedly pregnancy-induced nausea, the claims concerning Dao's medical conditions were related by counsel, not corroborated by documentary evidence or sworn testimony from Dao's medical doctors or a qualified expert. "A trial court is not required to order a competency hearing 'based merely upon counsel's perception . . .' " and though the court could seriously consider counsel's statements, " 'there is no good reason why it should control over other circumstances which the court may take into consideration.' " (People v. Avila, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 780.)