What is the test for determining whether a defendant is competent to commit acts of murder, forced oral copulation and rape?

Although defendant's acts of murder, forced oral copulation, and rape were unquestionably brutal, they do not as a matter of law evince a "delusional flair" that compels the court to initiate an investigation into competence. [45 Cal.3d 859] As we observed in People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 285, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228, "under the substantial evidence test ... more is required to raise a doubt than mere bizarre actions [citation] or bizarre statements [citation] or statements of defense counsel that defendant is incapable of cooperating in his defense [citation] or psychiatric testimony that defendant is immature, dangerous, psychopathic, or homicidal or such diagnosis with little reference to defendant's ability to assist in his own defense [citation]."