In a prosecution that led to conviction on charges of first degree robbery and grand larceny, as well as two related firearms offenses, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that defendant committed the offenses of which he was convicted. Because the Legislature clearly intended to punish multiple offenses when it enacted the statute prohibiting use or possession of dangerous or deadly weapons during the commission of crimes of violence, the defendant suffered no Double Jeopardy violation. A firearm, which is a deadly weapon, is also by definition a dangerous one, and thus the trial court's firearms instructions were not in error. Although the Superior Court erred by permitting the jury to submit verdict forms that did not state the value of the stolen property, this error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights because the trial court merged the grand larceny conviction with the first-degree robbery conviction, and did not impose a separate sentence for it. The defendant's substantial rights were also unaffected by the prosecutor's improper questions of the defendant on cross-examination about a purported offer to make restitution. The March 14, 2011 Judgment and Conviction is affirmed.