Is a parole officer's testimony admissible to prove a defendant's consciousness of guilt?

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the parole officer's testimony to prove defendant's consciousness of guilt. Both defendant's refusal to surrender to the parole officer and his flight from the state are relevant to show consciousness of guilt. (People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1030 [evidence that a defendant hid after a crime "is relevant to show consciousness of guilt"]; People v. Cartwright (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 402, 418 (Cartwright) [evidence that defendant "fail[ed] to respond" to police is evidence of consciousness of guilt]; People v. Garcia (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 261, 283-284 [evidence of a defendant's flight "is admissible as evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt"].)

Defendant offers what boil down to four reasons why the trial court's decision was erroneous.