"A criminal defendant has a constitutional right not to be tried, if he is legally incompetent." State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. 266, 270, 497 A.2d 1242 (1985) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966); State v. Bertrand, 123 N.H. 719, 724-25, 465 A.2d 912 (1983)). The New Hampshire Supreme Court has adopted the two-pronged test for competency as formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1960). See State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. 266, 497 A.2d 1242 (1985). That test asks "'whether a criminal 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 a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'" State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. at 270 (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. at 402). The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that both prongs of the Dusky test are met. See State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. 266, 270, 497 A.2d 1242 (1985). To be competent to stand trial, a defendant need not have a highly developed understanding of legal strategy. She only needs to have a "rational ... and factual understanding of the proceedings against him" and the "ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding." State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. at 270.