278 Mich App at 235. D At the outset, we note that the prosecution urges us to hold that the existence of territorial jurisdiction under MCL 762.2 is a pure question of law to be decided by the trial court. We conclude that the trial court must decide as an initial matter of law whether a particular alleged act, consequence, or other condition, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred within this state, would be legally sufficient to confer jurisdiction under MCL 762.2. However, w 994) (observing that, if placed in issue by the proofs, the issue of territorial jurisdiction “is properly submitted at trial” and that “[t]he State is required to prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt”); People v McLaughlin, 80 NY2d 466, 472; 591 NYS2d 966; 606 NE2d 1357 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Lane v State, 388 So 2d 1022, 1028-1029 (Fla,
holding that factors increasing a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum of the crime charged with the exception of prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact that increases a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury holding that facts that increase the maximum sentence a defendant faces must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding facts that increase the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt