See, generally, Annotation (1988), Witnesses: Child Competency Statutes, 60 A.L.R.4th 369. A similar analysis was employed by the court of appeals in State v. Kirk (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 536 N.E.2d 391.

Id. at 251, citing generally, Annotation (1988), Witnesses: Child Competency Statutes, 60 A.L.R.4th 369 and State v. Kirk, 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 536 N.E.2d 391 (1987).

As this court noted in Ferguson, " '[t]he crucial inquiry is the morality of speaking truthfully.' " Id. at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Kirk, 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 94 (5th Dist.1987). See also Maxwell, 2014-Ohio-1019, at ¶ 104 (the record supported the trial court's finding that a five-year-old witness understood the importance of telling the truth and was competent to testify, where the child had responded "[y]ou will get in trouble" when asked: "What happens if you tell a lie?"); Ferguson at ¶ 25

{¶22} As such, a reviewing court may not disturb the trial court's determination of competency absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Kirk, 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 94, 536 N.E.2d 391 (5th Dist.1987). An abuse of discretion requires a finding that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Likewise, a child's competency to testify does not depend on the child having "ready, intelligent answers to such perplexing questions as 'If you tell a lie, what happens to you?'" State v. Kirk (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 94, citing Harville v. State (Ala.Crim.App. 1980), 386 So.2d 776. Rather, "[t]he crucial inquiry is the morality of speaking truthfully."

Because determination of competency is in the sound discretion of the trial judge, State v. Frazier (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 251, we may not disturb the trial court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Kirk (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 94 citing State v. Workman (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 385, 389. The reason for such deference is the trial court is in a better position to observe the child's appearance, fear or composure, general demeanor and manner of answering, and any indication of coaching or instruction as to answers, Kirk, supra at 94 citing Wilson, supra at 532.

In determining whether a child under ten is competent to testify, the trial court must take into consideration (1) the child's ability to receive accurate impressions of fact or to observe acts about which he or she will testify, (2) the child's ability to recollect those impressions or observations, (3) the child's ability to communicate what was observed, (4) the child's understanding of truth and falsity and (5) the child's appreciation of his or her responsibility to be truthful. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d at 251; State v. Kirk (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 93 . These factors form a backdrop against which a reviewing court evaluates whether the trial judge's determination was an abuse of discretion. Schulte v. Schulte (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 41.

In his second assignment of error, appellant said that the trial court erred in finding that Nicole Hill was competent to testify at trial. Since we cannot reverse the trial court's ruling finding Nicole competent unless there was an abuse of discretion, see State v. Kirk (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 93, 536 N.E.2d 391, we assume that is what appellant is arguing. Evid.R. 601(A) states, in pertinent part, that "[e]very person is competent to be a witness except * * * children under ten (10) years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly."