With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". grant by Judge Ryan. The trial court found otherwise. This claim has not been resurrected on appeal. 7 . St. Clair’s argument that extreme wantonness is equal to intentional conduct is simply incorrect. While intentional homicides are treated the same as aggravatedly wanton homicides — both being murder — for purposes of determining a defendant’s culpability, that does not mean that the mental states are the same. 8 . Roark went on to say, however, that the fact that the defendant murdered the kidnapping victim could be used to satisfy the require ment of proving a statutory aggravating circumstance under KRS 532.025. That conclusion is questionable in light of this Court's reading of that statute in St. Clair's most recent appeal. See St. Clair Bullitt II, 451 S.W.3d at 643, 649-50, (<HOLDING>). More importantly, for purposes of the

A: holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation
B: holding that jury must find one of the eight listed statutory aggravators before imposing death
C: holding that only one statutory basis is required to find a child in need of aid
D: holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt
B.