In what circumstances will the jury consider whether or not to convict appellant of assault by reason of consciousness?

Third, the jury also heard evidence that appellant fled the scene soon after the crime. And, as the jury was properly instructed, such evidence of flight, though not sufficient in itself to establish guilt, could be considered by the jury on the question of whether appellant was guilty or not guilty. (See People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1030 ["evidence of flight immediately after the commission of a crime is relevant to show consciousness of guilt"].) Thus, the jury heard and was properly instructed on other evidence of appellant's conduct that could give rise to an inference of consciousness of guilt. This reduced the significance of (1) the evidence appellant suppressed the rum bottle and (2) CALJIC 2.06.