With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reasonably believe an armed robbery occurred. See Osborne. 335 S.C. at 180, 516 S.E.2d at 205; see also State v. Trexler, 316 N.C. 528, 342 S.E.2d 878, 880 (1986) (finding that the corroboration rule only requires the State’s independent evidence to “touch or be concerned with the corpus delicti ” and, standing alone, it need not prove any element of the crime). Here, Dodd’s confession to having a gun was corroborated by his threat to the clerk that he would kill her if she did not do as he told her. Although his threat, unaccompanied by any representation of a deadly weapon, would not independently be sufficient to establish the element of a deadly weapon, the threat is sufficient to corroborate Dodd’s confession to being armed. See Muldrow, 348 S.C. 264 at 268, 559 S.E.2d at 849 (<HOLDING>). When there is any evidence tending to

A: holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
B: holding that the state did not sufficiently prove the defendant was armed when the only evidence against him was that he handed a clerk a note that read give me all your cash or ill shoot you and there was no confession to having a gun
C: holding that when defendant was guilty of burglary but the only evidence that he was armed was from his own statement existence of the firearm went only to the degree of the offense and was not as an element of proof
D: holding that a demand note that read you have ten seconds to hand me all the money in your top drawer i have a gun warranted the twolevel enhancement because a reasonable teller would interpret the statement to mean if i do not give this robber money within ten seconds i will be shot and people who are shot often die
B.