legislative directive that juvenile dispositions not be treated as “convictions” for all purposes). Rule 11-609(D) implements the legislative directives by specifically excluding the use of a juvenile adjudication as a permissible means of impeaching a defendant. The Rule states: Evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible under this rule. The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence. (Emphasis added.) But see State v. Wyman, 96 N.M. 558, 559-60, 632 P.2d 1196, 1197-98 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). {11} The State argues that Defendant opened
holding that jeopardy attaches in juvenile adjudication that determines whether juvenile violated criminal law recognizing that an inquiry into the conduct underlying a defendants juvenile adjudication may be admissible under rule 11608b nmra if the prosecution does not specifically question the defendant about the juvenile adjudication and does not otherwise present any evidence regarding the defendants juvenile adjudication holding that although the juvenile restitution statute does not expressly require the juvenile court to determine whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the restitution ordered as a condition of probation the policies underlying the adult restitutions command that a trial court make such an inquiry applies with equal force to juvenile courts holding that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits