killed by fire or gunshots and, thus, were “acutely aware of their impending deaths.” Accordingly, and based upon the aforementioned reasons, we find that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that this murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. Pecuniary Gain Aggravator Looney next argues the trial court erred in finding the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. This Court, however, has previously rejected Looney’s argument that the pecuniary gain aggravator in inconsistent with a concurrent finding of the avoid arrest aggravator. See Thompson v. State, 648 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla.1994) (citing Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 409 (Fla. 1992)); see also Hildwin v. State, 727 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla.1998) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 680
holding that in order to establish this aggravator the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that the murder was motivated at least in part by a desire to obtain money property or other financial gain  holding that to establish that a murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness holding that the state must prove juvenile delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt holding state must prove voluntariness of confession beyond a reasonable doubt holding that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt