Nevertheless, appellant's contention that fabrication is established by inconsistencies in her testimony is rejected; it is for the jury to resolve the conflicts. Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841 (1) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989). Appellant also contends that to the extent the victim's testimony conflicted with the testimony of other witnesses, it should have been disallowed under OCGA § 24-9-85 (a).

See OCGA § 15–11–703. See also Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841(7), 376 S.E.2d 184 (1989) (recognizing that former OCGA § 15–11–38(b), now codified at OCGA § 15–11–703, specifically provides that a defendant's juvenile records may be introduced during the sentencing phase of trial). Judgment affirmed.

We disagree. “The trial of offenses may be joined when the offenses are based on the same conduct or constitute a series of acts connected together or when the acts constitute parts of a single scheme or plan. Dingler v. State, 233 Ga. 462, 211 S.E.2d 752 (1975).” Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841, 843(2), 376 S.E.2d 184 (1989). In the related area of severance, severance is not mandatory where crimes were committed as part of a continuing spree.

We recognize that multiple charging instruments may be formally consolidated or joined for prosecution and trial. See Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841, 842–843, 376 S.E.2d 184 (1989) (holding that a trial court has discretion to join multiple indictments for trial when “the offenses are based on the same conduct or constitute a series of acts connected together or when the acts constitute parts of a single scheme or plan”); Jackson v. State, 309 Ga.App. 796, 799, 714 S.E.2d 584 (2011) (“ ‘A trial court has discretion to conduct a joint trial on two separate indictments where the joinder is based upon the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.’ ” (citation omitted)). If such a joinder results in a single set of proceedings culminating in a single judgment, the Court of Appeals may be correct in saying that there is only “one occasion” as to which the defendant may receive first offender treatment. See Higdon, 311 Ga.App. at 390, 715 S.E.2d 741.

Earnest, 262 Ga. at 494-95 (1).Wilson, 271 Ga. at 822 (20); Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841, 844 (7) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). 23.

Such records are admissible in the penalty phase of a capital murder case. Smith v. State, supra at (2); Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841 (7) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). Wilson further contends that evidence of his prior criminal activity was improperly admitted during the penalty phase because the evidence was insufficiently reliable.

A defendant's juvenile court record is admissible as aggravation evidence in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841, 844(7) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38(b). The record shows that the detective complied with OCGA § 15-11-59(c) because he obtained the consent of the juvenile court judge before examining Smith's file.

Even though they knew Christenson had been in trouble with the law as a juvenile, they did not seek to obtain a copy of his juvenile record under the mistaken belief that specific juvenile offenses could not be referred to on cross-examination (trial counsel did no research on this point). See Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841, 844 (7) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989). Some mitigation witnesses were also forced to admit that, based on their direct testimony of Christenson's happy childhood and supportive family, Christenson had been given many opportunities in life but had decided to squander them.

However, assuming it could have rebutted defense testimony, see Wright v. State, 255 Ga. 109 (7) ( 335 S.E.2d 857) (1985), this extensive prior record was not offered in evidence. See Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841 (7) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989) (juvenile records of adjudication admissible in aggravation of sentence). (c) Where the defendant objects to the district attorney's questions to the defendant's character witnesses about offenses of which the state has not given notice under OCGA § 17-10-2, the district attorney is required to demonstrate that his questions were asked in good faith, and based on reliable information that can be supported by admissible evidence.

) The trial court did not err by allowing the juvenile adjudication to be admitted in evidence during the sentencing phase of this trial. Burrell v. State, 258 Ga. 841 (7) ( 376 S.E.2d 184) (1989). 8. Our Code provides: