In State v. Holmes, 64 Conn. App. 80, 778 A.2d 253, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 911, 782 A.2d 1249 (2001), the defendant claimed that the trial court incorrectly permitted an inference of flight when the state did not offer any evidence to show that he was aware that the police were looking for him. Id., 64 Conn. App. at 86-87. In that case, the trial court, relying on State v. Hyslop, 10 Conn. App. 457, 523 A.2d 1350 (1987), and State v. Nemeth, 182 Conn. 403, 438 A.2d 120 (1980), permitted the state to introduce the testimony of a police sergeant who testified that on several occasions he left his business card at a location where the defendant was thought to have resided with instructions to call the police department because he was wanted for questioning. Id., 64 Conn. App. at 83-84. In upholding the court's decision, the Court stated that " State v. Nemeth and State v. Hyslop articulate the principle that the state is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that the defendant had actual knowledge that he was being charged with a criminal offense before introducing evidence of his flight. . . . The court properly relied on Nemeth and Hyslop in allowing the state to present evidence of the defendant's flight even if it failed to introduce direct or inferential evidence that the defendant knew that he was wanted by the police." Id., 64 Conn. App. at 87.