In State v. Figueroa, 257 Conn. 192, 777 A.2d 587 (2001) the Court, in rejecting an invitation to exercise its supervisory powers to bar jury instructions on consciousness of guilt stated: "Consciousness of guilt is a form of circumstantial evidence. Generally speaking, all that is required is that the evidence have relevance, and the fact that ambiguities or explanations may exist which tend to rebut an inference of guilt does not render evidence of consciousness of guilt inadmissible but simply constitutes a factor for the jury's consideration. . . . The fact that the evidence might support an innocent explanation as well as an inference of a consciousness of guilt does not make an instruction on consciousness of guilt erroneous. . . . Moreover, the court was not required to enumerate all the possible innocent explanations offered by the defendant." Id.