With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judge expressly stated in his sentencing order that he gave “due regard against inappropriate double consideration” and found that this aggravator merged with another aggravator, i.e., that the murders were committed during the course of a burglary, arson, or robbery; therefore, both aggravators were only “considered as one” by the trial court. See Sentencing Order at 4, 10, State v. Looney, No. 97-215 (Fla.2d Cir.Ct. Feb. 18, 2000). Having merged the two, the trial court was correct in setting forth the basis for doing so, as there is ample evidence in the record to prove Looney benefitted financially from these murders. 32 . Moreover, any argument that this Court should unilaterally reject Dempsey's testimony is also without merit. See Brown v. State, 721 So.2d 274, 282 (Fla.1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, the judge and the jury were made aware

A: holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony
B: holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine
C: holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves
D: holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury
B.