conclude that it is for the trier of fact to decide as a question of fact whether the alleged act, consequence, or other condition actually occurred in Michigan. Whether a statute applies is generally a question of law, Alex v Wildfong, 460 Mich 10, 21; 594 NW2d 469 (1999), as is the proper interpretation and application of a statute, People v Coutu, 459 Mich 348, 353; 589 NW2d 458 (1999). Therefore, we conclude that it is for the trial court to initially decide as a question of law whether a particular alleged act, consequence, or other condition would be legally sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction. Stated another way, the trial court must exercise an initial gatekeeping function by first determining whether the facts to be offered by the prosecution, if proven, 1319 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v Liggins, 524 NW2d 181, 184-185 (Iowa,
holding that the territorial jurisdictional issue is a factual determination which is within the province of the jury to resolve under appropriate instructions and that we agree with the weight of authority that the territorial jurisdictional issue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state holding that the state must establish that a legal situs of the offense was in delaware and that the reviewing court is required to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in the very rare case in which jurisdiction is legitimately in issue because of contradicting jurisdictional facts arizonas territorial jurisdiction must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt