In the Case of State V

In the case of State v. Wells, the court of appeals of Ohio considered the decision of a lower court relating to the competency of a five-year-old girl to testify at the trial against her accused sexual offender. The defendant appealed on the ground that the trial court failed to properly find that the child was competent as a witness. After considering the defendant's appellate contentions, the court of appeals decided:

A) to uphold the conviction because the child met the only test to be applied in determining whether a child is competent. It was clear that the child understood the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth.
B) to uphold the conviction because children must be competent to be able to make accusations of a sexual nature at such a young age.
C) to order a new trial on the theory that if there had been errors in admitting the child testimony because the child might not have been competent, because she would be older at a new trial, competency would not be an issue.
D) to order a new trial because, under the circumstances, the trial judge had not properly examined the child to determine her competency.