Absent a showing that the ruling as to competency could not have been the result of a reasoned decision, the ruling must stand on appeal. The testimony in this case is similar to that in Hicks, where our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that a seven year old was competent to testify. She indicated a capacity to understand and relate facts to the jury concerning defendant's assaults upon her, and a comprehension of the difference between truth and untruth. She also . . . A.C.'s testimony met the standard of Rule 601 and thus we find there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in finding her competent to testify.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony.
A.C.'s mother testified that, while in the car after picking her up from day care, A.C. told her about the defendant's attack. While conceding the failure to object at trial, defendant argues that the trial court's admission of this hearsay testimony was plain and reversible error. 128 N.C. App. Although the better practice calls for the party offering the evidence to specify the purpose for which the evidence is offered, unless challenged there is no requirement that the purpose be specified. 104 N.C. App.