What is the test for "flight" in a criminal case?

Defendant reads the word "flight" too literally. The critical inquiry is not whether defendant departed from the premises but whether he took steps to avoid apprehension. "[F]light 'requires neither the physical act of running nor the reaching of a faraway haven' but it does require 'a purpose to avoid being observed or arrested.'" (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 126.) In this instance, defendant hid himself in the back of a car on the premises rather than wait around for the authorities and explain what happened. Such an act demonstrates a consciousness of guilt. Defendant told the interviewing officers he did not run because he assumed "they" would catch him using a helicopter. In other words, defendant considered he had a better chance of avoiding apprehension by hiding than by running.