With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 443 So.2d 973, 976 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210, 104 S.Ct. 2400, 81 L.Ed.2d 356 (1984). In order to support a finding that a defendant committed a murder to avoid arrest, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s dominant or only motive for the murder of the victim, who is not a law enforcement officer, is the elimination of a witness. Menendez v. State, 368 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1979). “Proof of the requisite intent to avoid arrest and detection must be very strong” to support this aggravating circumstance when the victim is not a law enforcement officer. Riley v. State, 366 So.2d 19, 22 (Fla.1978). The State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Robertson’s dominant mo a.1991), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1198, 117 L.Ed.2d 438 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court erred in finding the

A: holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest
B: holding 404b motive evidence admissible where murder statute required government to prove not only that defendant killed victim but that she killed victim for purpose of preventing him or anyone else from providing law enforcement with information about federal crimes she committed
C: holding the evidence supported the inference that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim overpowered the defendants and effected his own escape
D: holding that evidence the defendant knew the victim supported a finding that the murder was committed to avoid arrest
A.