In Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 26 (Fla. 2000), the defendant and the victim left a bar together and traveled to the victim's house, where the defendant sexually battered the victim before killing her. The defendant's hypothesis of innocence for the sexual battery charge in Zack was that he had consensual sex with the victim prior to killing her. See id. at 18. The defendant claimed that after he and the victim had consensual sex in the victim's home, the victim made a comment that enraged the defendant, causing him to attack her. There was no direct evidence regarding whether the victim consented to the sexual intercourse. The State presented expert testimony that blood evidence and other physical evidence indicated that the assault began as soon as the defendant and the victim entered the victim's home. The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and held that "the State presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant attacked the victim as soon as they entered her house and sexually assaulted her while she was in a weakened condition." Id. In sum, in Zack v. State, the defendant complained the trial court failed to consider a list of mitigating circumstances. After reviewing the sentencing order, the Court determined the factors were in fact discussed and referenced in the order with each mitigating factor properly set forth. See 753 So. 2d at 20.The defendant hit the victim with a beer bottle, sexually assaulted her, and beat her head against the bedroom's wooden floor. He retrieved a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the chest four times. The defendant went back to the kitchen, cleaned the knife, put it away, and washed the blood from his hands. He then returned to the master bedroom, placed the victim's bloody shirt and shorts in her dresser drawer, stole a television, a VCR, and the victim's purse, and placed the stolen items in her car and drove away. Id. at 14. The Court concluded that the evidence was inconclusive to support the avoid-arrest aggravator because the defendant had a larger "premeditated plan" in mind. Id. at 20. The defendant's acts were part of a "crime-riddled journey" in which he had committed a variety of assaults and robberies against other victims. Id. at 13-14. Although he did not have to murder the victim "to accomplish his monetary goals, this alone does not make the defendant's dominant motive the desire to avoid arrest." Id. at 20.