With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". newly raised constitutional issues. Id. Here, Pugmire did not even argue — let alone demonstrate— plain error or exceptional circumstances; accordingly, the constitutional issue is not properly before this court and we will not consider it further. See City of Orem v. Lee, 846 P.2d 450, 452 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993). II. Sufficiency of Evidence Pugmire argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the knife he carried was a dangerous weapon. The knife itself was the only evidence presented at trial on this issue. Although we are dissatisfied with the controlling analysis found in State v. Archam-beau, 820 P.2d 920, 928-30 (Utah App.1991), we are constrained to follow it. See State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1269 (Utah 1993) (<HOLDING>). In Archambeau, the only evidence the trial

A: holding that where a panel of the court of appeals has decided the same issue albeit in a different case a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent unless it has been overturned by a higher court
B: holding stare decisis applies when one court of appeals panel is faced with previous decision of different panel
C: holding that decision by panel of this court is established precedent under rules of stare decisis
D: holding that one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion
B.