What is the burden on the prosecution to establish competence to stand at a preliminary hearing?

Inherently, burdens of proof draw lines. Those who cannot cross the line, regardless of how close they may come, are denied relief. Therefore to argue, as defendant does, that the statutory burden of proof line denies relief to those who come close ("the evidence is balanced") but fail to cross it, only describes an attribute inherent in all burdens of proof. Defendant must do more. He must show that this line "offends some principle of justice ... rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people...." (Patterson v. New York, supra, 432 U.S. 197, 201-202, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2322-2323.) We conclude he has not done so.

Although defendant cites federal and some state authorities which "put the burden on the prosecution to establish competence to stand trial," he acknowledges contrary authorites. This issue, at least in California, is now settled. The burden of proof (at an initial competency hearing) may constitutionally be placed upon the defendant. (People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d 870, 885, 274 Cal.Rptr. 849, 799 P.2d 1282.)