With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rankin v. State, 329 Ark. 379, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997). The State concludes that the discretionary decision of the trial judge concerning consecutive sentences did not require the admission of additional evidence and that he was not required to ignore his extensive knowledge of the crimes, gleaned from what he had learned while presiding over the proceedings in the three codefendants’ cases. We agree with Throneberry that the trial judge’s consideration of evidence that was never introduced against her was improper. Our supreme court has clearly stated that judicial notice may not be taken of the record in a separate case. Smith v. State, 307 Ark. 223, 818 S.W.2d 945 (1991); Leach v. State, 303 Ark. 309, 796 S.W.2d 837 (1990); see also Baxter v. State, 324 Ark. 440, 922 S.W.2d 682 (1996) (<HOLDING>); John Wesley Hall, Jr., Trial Handbook for

A: holding that a codefendants sentence is not relevant to an appellants guilt innocence or punishment
B: holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions in light of some new cases did not demonstrate his actual innocence because petitioner only asserts legal innocence not actual innocence
C: holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment
D: holding that capital punishment must be tailored to the defendants personal responsibility and moral guilt
A.