¶1Richard Traynor appeals from his convictions of unlawful sexual contact, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(l)(c) (1983 & Supp.1988), and assault, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207 (1983 & Supp.1988), after a jury trial in the Superi- or Court (Cumberland County; Brodrick, J.). We affirm the judgments.
¶2We find no clear error in the Superior Court’s determination that the child prose-cutrices were competent to testify. Both children demonstrated an ability to express themselves “so as to be understood by the judge and jury,” and a sufficient understanding of the duty to tell the truth. State v. Hussey, 521 A.2d 278, 280 (Me. 1987).
¶3We also find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s rulings on discovery violations. State v. Landry, 459 A.2d 175, 177 (Me.1983). Because the defendant waived at oral argument the final issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not address it here.
¶4The entry is: Judgments affirmed.
¶5All concurring.