has expressed apprehension regarding arrest. See Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656, 676-78 (Fla.2001); see also Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1056 (Fla.2000); Sliney v. State, 699 So.2d 662 (Fla.1997). The statements made by Reynolds to Courtney regarding his apprehension of arrest given his previous record “appearf ] to be exactly the type of apprehension ... this Court finds determinative of establishing the avoid arrest aggravator.” Looney, 803 So.2d at 677. Notwithstanding the above, even if we were to agree with Reynolds and conclude that the trial court erred in finding this aggravating circumstance, the error would be harmless because we can state beyond a reasonable doubt that any error in this regard did not affect the result in this case. See DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1135 (<HOLDING>). Even if we struck this aggravating
holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that a constitutional error is harmless where it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction holding that an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction