PENNELL, J. - William Julian appeals his convictions for two counts of first degree child molestation and one count of felony communication with a minor for immoral purposes. We affirm.

FACTS

The facts are familiar to the parties and need not be recounted in detail. Mr. Julian was charged with sexually assaulting an eight-year-old child 1 who had been left in his care. After a contested hearing, the child in question was deemed competent to testify. In No. 33549-6-111 State v. Julian

The manner in which the trial court handled Mr. Julian's stipulation was consistent with Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 190-91, 117 S. Ct. 644, 136 L. Ed. 2d 574

(1997). The jury was shielded from details of Mr. Julian's prior offense. Nothing further was required. State v. Gladden, 116 Wn. App. 561, 566, 66 P.3d 1095 (2003); State v.

Roswell, 165 Wn.2d 186, 198, 196 P.3d 705 (2008).

Challenges to the Victim's Statements

Mr. Julian's next three arguments concern the child victim's testimony and statements. He first argues the child was not competent to testify as she lacked the ability to truthfully relate her impressions of the events giving rise to his charges. Second, he contends the trial court erroneously admitted prior statements under the child hearsay rule. Finally, he argues the court's decision to admit the child hearsay evidence was more prejudicial than probative, in violation of ER 403.

Competence

This court reviews a trial court's competency determination for manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 645, 790 P.2d 610 (1990). This is an extremely deferential standard. State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 617, 114 P.3d 1174

(2005) (because "[t]he competency of a youthful witness is not easily reflected in a written record, and [an appellate court] must rely on the trial judge who sees the witness, j

I I 1 No. 33549-6-III l 1

State v. Julian ! f notices the witness's manner, and considers his or her capacity and intelligence").

I I I

In his challenge to the child witness's competence, Mr. Julian argues the child lacked sufficient memory of the alleged assaults and appeared to have been coached. 3 l The record does not reflect Mr. Julian met his burden4 of substantiating these claims. The child victim was able to remember details about her life from the time period of the j offense conduct, including a description of the interior of Mr. Julian's apartment. She t l testified coherently, did not engage in fantastical thinking, and was able to differentiate l truth from a lie. Contrary to Mr. Julian's assertions, ample evidence suggests the child's l testimony came from her own memory, not coaching. The child's mother denied discussing events in detail with her daughter, and the child testified prosecutors did not tell her what to say. Testimony from the defense expert that law enforcement used suggestive interviewing techniques went to the weight of the child's credibility, not the admissibility.

3Five factors govern a court's analysis of child witness competence: (1) the child's understanding the obligation to tell the truth, (2) the child's mental capacity to receive accurate information at the time of the event in question, (3) a sufficient memory to retain an independent recollection, (4) the capacity to express memory in words, and (5) the capacity to understand simple questions. State v. Allen, 70 Wn.2d 690, 692, 424 P.2d 1021 (1967). Any inconsistencies in a child witness's testimony go to credibility, not admissibility. State v. Przybylski, 48 Wn. App. 661, 665, 739 P.2d 1203 (1987).

i l I j No. 33549-6-III i State v. Julian i f ~

Child Hearsay

I ! 1

Mr. Julian's second challenge pertains to the admission of child hearsay statements

I under RCW 9A.44.120. Because the child was properly deemed competent and made 1 j available for cross-examination, Mr. Julian's only possible remaining claim is the child i I hearsay statements were insufficiently reliable. 5 The trial court's reliability decision is f I reviewed for abuse of discretion. Swan, 114 Wn.2d at 665-66.

We find the trial court had sufficient reasons for rejecting Mr. Julian's various

II claims regarding reliability:

1 • Motive to lie: The child denied she was motivated to lie about abuse in i i order to gain her mother's attention. In addition, the evidence did not I I suggest anything specific about Mr. Julian that would prompt the victim to

I lie about him. ^[1] I I

5 • Character of the victim: School records and testimony from the child's

J Reliability turns on the totality of nine nonexclusive factors: "( 1) whether there is an apparent motive to lie, (2) the general character of the declarant, (3) whether more than 1 one person heard the statement, (4) the spontaneity of the statements, (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness, (6) whether the

I statement contained express assertions of past fact, (7) whether the declarant's lack of knowledge could be established through cross-examination, (8) the remoteness of the possibility of the declarant's recollection being faulty, and (9) whether the surrounding

I

circumstances suggested the declarant misrepresented the defendant's involvement." State v. Kennealy, 151 Wn. App. 861,880,214 P.3d 200 (2009). & l 11 l

/

No. 33549-6-111 State v. Julian mother did not indicate the child had any significant problems with dishonesty. Behavior problems that arose during the time frame of the abuse could be understood as a responses to the abuse.

• Lack of spontaneity: The hearsay statements were not made in response to overly leading questions nor did the statements in the video appear rehearsed. They were thus sufficiently spontaneous.

• Timing and relationship with witness: All the out-of-court statements occurred over a relatively short period of time. The people to whom statements were made were reasonable, given the child's circumstances.

• Faulty recollection: Consistencies between the child's statements and l physical evidence such as bruising indicated a sufficient memory. 6

\ ER403 1 1 I

Mr. Julian's final challenge to the child's hearsay statements is, even if reliable, I j they should not have been admitted because they are cumulative and unduly prejudicial.

He also contends the trial court essentially commented on the child's credibility by l i 6 Mr. Julian also argues, for the first time on appeal, the child's out-of-court statements were not reliable because the child misrepresented the defendant's J'i involvement. To the extent this argument has not been waived, it is not sufficiently

I ' l strong to offset the other factors favoring reliability. l 7 l l ll l l .f

No. 33549-6-111 State v. Julian l admitting multiple child hearsay statements.

Mr. Julian's first argument fails because he did not object on ER 403 grounds in the trial court. He thus waived this argument. RAP 2.5(a); State v. Chase, 59 Wn. App. J 501, 508, 799 P .2d 272 ( 1990) (any violation of ER 403 is not of constitutional magnitude

Il and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

t j Mr. Julian's second contention fails on the merits. The admission of child hearsay l l statements was not a comment on the evidence. The statements were the evidence.

Standing alone, admission of evidence cannot be considered an unconstitutional comment on the evidence. State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 638-39, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995).

Sufficiency of Evidence

I Lastly, Mr. Julian argues that because the child victim was not credible, the State presented insufficient evidence to justify his conviction. This is not a viable challenge.

The jury was entitled to believe the child witness. ^[7]

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS J t Mr. Julian contends the trial court improperly admitted the child's statements to the forensic interviewer. Because this concern has already been adequately addressed in No. 33549-6-III State v. Julian the briefing, it does not merit further review. RAP 10.lO(a).

CONCLUSION

The judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW

2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

Pennell, J.

I) Fearing, C.