In Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364, 380 (D.C. 1979) the Court was confronted with the question of whether a defendant had voluntarily and intelligently waived an insanity defense. See Frendak, 408 A.2d at 367. In that case, slightly different from the present case, the trial court had sua sponte conducted an inquiry into the defendant's sanity at the time of the crime and interposed over defendant's objection an insanity defense, without conducting an inquiry into whether the defendant had voluntarily and intelligently waived the defense. See 408 A.2d at 369. The Court held that a trial court has discretion to interpose an insanity defense over a defendant's objection only if the court is convinced, after proper inquiry, that the defendant has not made, and cannot make, such a voluntary and intelligent decision. The rule that stemmed from Frendak is that when the evidence suggests a substantial question about the defendant's mental condition at the time of the crime, the trial court must make three separate determinations, in the following order: (1) whether the defendant is competent to stand trial; (2) if so, whether he or she, based on present mental capacity, can intelligently and voluntarily waive the insanity defense 9 and has done so; (3) if not, whether the court should sua sponte impose the insanity defense based on evidence of the defendant's mental condition at the time of the alleged crime.