In State v. Lincoln, 183 Neb. 770, 164 N.W.2d 470, 472 (Neb. 1969), a window at a jewelry store was broken at night and various items taken from the window display. Lincoln, 164 N.W. 2d at 471. Within seconds a service man from the alarm company saw a car, with the defendant and a companion inside, come around the corner one block from the scene of the crime traveling 30 miles per hour without its headlights on. Id. Five minutes before the burglary, a police officer observed the same car with its lights off in an alley 2 1/2 blocks from the jewelry store. Id. at 472. When the officer started to drive his cruiser down the alley, the defendant's car pulled out at the other end of the alley. Id. The Supreme Court of Nebraska decided that a flight instruction was proper where the defendant's conduct was "clearly sufficient to sustain an inference of flight as distinguished from mere departure from the scene of a crime." Id. The Court drew a distinction between the meaning of the words "flight" and "departure:" The term "flight" is often misused for the word "departure." Departure from the scene after a crime has been committed, of itself, does not warrant an inference of guilt. "Flight" may be established by a broad range of circumstances. We believe the proper rule to be that for departure to take on the legal significance of flight, there must be circumstances present and unexplained which, in conjunction with the leaving, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and pursuant to an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution based on that guilt. Id.