the scene of the burglary. Id. at 310, 94 S.Ct. 1105. As evidence of the witness’s possible bias and prejudice and because the witness was on probation at the time of these events, defense counsel in Davis sought to capitalize on the witness’s f appeal that was presented to the trial court during his offer to prove. Defendant argued that because Moody’s juvenile adjudication involved a crime of dishonesty and because he was considered one of two key witnesses in the State’s case, the record should be admitted for ' impeachment purposes. Defendant again relies on Davis to argue admissibility of Moody’s juvenile record on this basis; however, this reliance is misplaced in several respects. First, contrary to Defendant’s contention, and unlike the defendant in Davis, Moody Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Here, Defendant proposed no alternative
holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary holding that because defendant initiated conversation leading to statement trial court did not err in admitting statement holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding that the trial court did not err in admitting juvenile records where counsel stated in his opening statement that the witness had no record when in actuality the witness had nine juvenile adjudications for burglary holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony