stayed in the car. If flight can be used to infer guilt, it would seem logical that the failure to flee might indicate the lack of a consciousness of personal guilt. Cf. Commonwealth v. Scudder, 490 Pa. 415, 416 A.2d 1003 (1980) (fact that van in which defendant was a passenger fled from police could not be used to infer guilt without evidence that defendant directed, encouraged, or consented to the flight). Moreover, the statutory element of control allows for conviction only when the defendant knowingly procures or receives the thing possessed or was aware of his or her control over the item for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession. See State v. McCoy, 116 N.J. 293, 561 A.2d 582, 585 (1989); cf. State v. Lopez, 109 N.M. 578, 787 P.2d 1261 (Ct. App.1990) (<HOLDING>). That is not true of Defendant, who cannot be
holding that criminal intent may be inferred from the defendants false explanation of the possession of stolen items recognizing that defendants intent to return stolen items to their rightful owner is a valid defense to charge of receiving stolen property holding receiving stolen property is per se dishonest holding that the value of property taken includes cash that was stolen but not transferred from stolen car to getaway car because property removed from its rightful owner is properly considered taken even if it is immediately thereafter recovered holding receiving stolen property is crimen falsi