in describing areas of the bedroom where accelerant was likely poured, e.g., on the flooring immediately surrounding the bed where the photo depicts flooring as completely missing. Fourth, the photo depicted for the jury the massive damage done by the fire to the victims and the area immediately surrounding them such that, as investigator Yao opined, it significantly interfered with the recovery of projectiles and other forensic evidence. Finally, and although not argued by the parties, Exhibit 1-C is also probative of the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance, where it is clear from the photo that the defendants sought to leave no shred of evidence linking them to this crime by torching the victims and their immediate surroundings. See Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953, 963 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>). Nor can State’s Exhibit 1-C be called
holding a similar nevada aggravating circumstance unconstitutionally vague under godfrey holding allegedly gruesome photos relevant to proving aggravating circumstance holding the same nevada aggravating circumstance unconstitutionally vague under godfrey holding that an aggravating circumstance in the georgia death penalty statute was unconstitutionally vague holding that photos were not needed to prove felonymurder aggravating factor