“because the defendant wanted to make an argument that he offered to take the test. That can be argued to the jury.” Id. at 225. Consequently, in his closing argument, trial counsel urged the jury to consider that Elliott never confessed to the crime and, in fact, agreed to take a lie detector test. N.T., Oct. 27, 1994, at 214-16. Elliott now -asserts that the trial court’s instruction to the jury — that his willingness to take a lie detector test was irrelevant — denied his constitutional rights to confrontation, to present a defense, and to due process because the instruction prevented the jury from considering evidence of his lack of consciousness of guilt. Revised Brief of Appellee/Cross Appellant at 64 (citing Commonwealth v. Wagner, 383 Pa.Super. 128, 556 A.2d 462, 464-65 (1989) (<HOLDING>)). Regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth
holding that a party failed to present any evidence to rebut inference that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable holding defendants false exculpatory statements admissible to show consciousness of guilt holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt holding that under rule 401 of the north carolina rules of evidence ejvidence that another committed the crime for which the defendant is charged generally is relevant and admissible as long as it does more than create an inference or conjecture in this regard it must point directly to the guilt of the other party under rule 401 such evidence must tend both to implicate another and be inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant holding that where the commonwealth offers evidence of flight to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt the defendant must be permitted to rebut that inference by introducing evidence that he fled for another reason that was consistent with his innocence