" We have held many times that the competency of a witness to testify is to be determined at the time the witness is called to testify and rests mainly, if not entirely, in the sound discretion of the trial judge in the light of his examination and observation of the particular witness. 7 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Witnesses 1 (1968); State v. Cooke, 278 N.C. 288, 179 S.E.2d 365 (1971); State v. Bowden, 272 N.C. 481, 158 S.E.2d 493 (1968); State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406 (1966); Artesani v. Gritton, 252 N.C. 463, 113 S.E.2d 895 (1960); State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754 (1952). Defendant waited too late to challenge the competency of Mrs. Wetmore, but assuming that his objections to her competency were timely made, we hold that defendant's motion was properly denied.
The question of the victim's competency to testify rested in the sound discretion of the trial court. McCurdy v. Ashley, 259 N.C. 619, 131 S.E.2d 321; State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; State v. Jackson, 211 N.C. 202, 189 S.E. 510; State v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466."
"There was no error in holding that the little girl who was the alleged victim of these offenses was a competent witness. Artesani v. Gritton, 252 N.C. 463, 113 S.E.2d 895; State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; State v. Gibson, 221 N.C. 252, 20 S.E.2d 51; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., 505. There is no age below which one is incompetent, as a matter of law, to testify. The test of competency is the capacity of the proposed witness to understand and to relate under the obligation of an oath facts which will assist the jury in determining the truth of the matters as to which it is called upon to decide.
Competency is to be determined at the time the witness is called to testify and rests mainly, if not entirely, in the sound discretion of the trial judge in the light of his examination and observation of the particular witness. State v. Bowden, 272 N.C. 481, 158 S.E.2d 493; State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406; Artesani v. Gritton, 252 N.C. 463, 113 S.E.2d 895; State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; 7 Strong's N.C. Index 2d, Witnesses 1; Stansbury's N.C. Evidence 55 (2d ed., 1963); 2 Wigmore on Evidence 505-509 (3d ed., 1940); 3 Jones on Evidence 757 (5th ed., 1958); Annot., 81 A.L.R.2d 386. In McCurdy v. Ashley, 259 N.C. 619, 131 S.E.2d 321, Justice Parker (later Chief Justice) quotes with approval from Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 40 L.Ed. 244, 16 S.Ct. 93 (in which a boy nearly five and one-half years old was held to be a competent witness in a murder case), as follows:
The question of the victim's competency to testify rested in the sound discretion of the trial court. McCurdy v. Ashley, 259 N.C. 619, 131 S.E.2d 321; State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; State v. Jackson, 211 N.C. 202, 189 S.E. 510; State v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
There was no error in holding that the little girl who was the alleged victim of these offenses was a competent witness. Artesani v. Gritton, 252 N.C. 463, 113 S.E.2d 895; State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; State v. Gibson, 221 N.C. 252, 20 S.E.2d 51; Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., 505. There is no age below which one is incompetent, as a matter of law, to testify. The test of competency is the capacity of the proposed witness to understand and to relate under the obligation of an oath facts which will assist the jury in determining the truth of the matters as to which it is called upon to decide.
The judge's ruling was correct. S. v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466 (a seven-year-old child); S. v. Gibson, 221 N.C. 252, 20 S.E.2d 51 (a five-year-old child); S. v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754 (a five-year-old child); McCurdy v. Ashley, 259 N.C. 619, 131 S.E.2d 321 (a six-year and five or six-month-old child). After Shirley Elizabeth Silver was held to be a competent witness, the jury returned to the courtroom, and she testified in substance on direct examination: Defendant Carter is her stepfather.
These assignments of error are overruled. This little boy's competency to testify as a witness in these consolidated cases was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge. S. v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; S. v. Gibson, 221 N.C. 252, 20 S.E.2d 51; S. v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466; S. v. Edwards, 79 N.C. 648. Speaking to the identical question in Artesani v. Gritton, 252 N.C. 463, 113 S.E.2d 895, Rodman, J., delivering the opinion of the Court said:
The test of competency is not age but capacity to understand and relate under the obligation of an oath a fact or facts which will assist the jury in determining the truth with respect to the ultimate facts which it will be called upon to decide. S. v. Edwards, 79 N.C. 648; Lanier v. Bryan, 184 N.C. 235, 114 S.E. 6; S. v. Satterfield, 207 N.C. 118, 176 S.E. 466; S. v. Jackson, 211 N.C. 202, 189 S.E. 510; Carpenter v. Boyles, 213 N.C. 432, 196 S.E. 850; S. v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754; Cross v. Commonwealth, 77 S.E.2d 447; Hill v. Skinner, 79 N.E.2d 787; Senecal v. Drollette, 108 N.E.2d 602; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, sec. 55; 58 Am. Jur 99-100; 97 C.J.S. 449. Wigmore states the law thus: "But this much may be taken as settled, that no rule defines any particular age as conclusive of incapacity; in each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated."
This rule was received by the American courts in the 19th century and is widely accepted today. See, e.g., State v. Whittier, 21 Me. 341 (1842); Washburn v. People, 10 Mich. 372 (1862); State v. Edwards, 79 N.C. 648 (1878); Wheeler v.United States, 159 U.S. 523, 16 S.Ct. 93, 40 L.Ed. 244(1895); Carpenterv. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 851, 44 S.E.2d 419 (1947); State v. Merritt, 236 N.C. 363, 72 S.E.2d 754 (1952); State v. Pinkham, 411 A.2d 1021 (Me. 1980); State v. Fearing, 315 N.C. 167, 337 S.E.2d 551 (1985); Gaines v. Commonwealth, ___ S.W.2d ___, No. 86-SC-39-MR (Ky. filed March 12, 1987). It is the law of South Carolina. State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 230 S.E.2d 618 (1976).