In this armed robbery case, the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of common law robbery.  The court began its analysis by noting that “[o]nly one element distinguishes common law robbery and robbery with a dangerous weapon, and that element is the use of a dangerous weapon.”  The trial court did not instruct the jury that the box cutter the state’s evidence tended to show the defendant used during the robbery was a dangerous weapon as a matter of law and instead submitted that factual issue to the jury.  Relying on State v. Clevinger, ___ N.C. App. ___, 791 S.E.2d 248 (2016), the court held that the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the lesser included offense because, though it did not do so, the trial court could have found the box cutter to be a dangerous weapon as a matter of law.