knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result, (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b). People v Smith, 478 Mich 292, 318-319; 733 NW2d 351 (2007); People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 758-759; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). The charge of felony murder in this case was based alternatively on the alleged predicate felonies of larceny and kidnapping, both of which are specifically enumerated in MCL 750.316(1)(b). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the jury was properly instructed on the elements of both kidnapping and larceny. It is axiomatic that jurors are presumed to have followed their instructions. People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 486; 581 NW2d 229 (1998); Unger 980) (<HOLDING>); McKinney v State, 553 NE2d 860, 863 (Ind App,
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 the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt 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