offense produces consequences that have a materially harmful impact upon the system of government or the community welfare of this state, or results in persons within this state being defrauded or otherwise harmed. It is well settled that the Legislature has the power to alter or abrogate the common law. Const 1963, art 3, § 7; People v Lively, 470 Mich 248, 252; 680 NW2d 878 (2004). The language of MCL 762.2 has broadened the scope of Michigan’s territorial jurisdiction over criminal matters, significantly expanding upon the common-law rule explained in Blume. For instance, pursuant to MCL 762.2(1)(a) and (2)(a), Michigan now has statutory territorial jurisdiction “over any crime where any act constituting an element of the crime is committed within Michigan,” People v King, 2 6) (<HOLDING>); State v Svenson, 104 Wash 2d 533, 542; 707
holding that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that in resolving whether the crime occurred in tennessee they must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence introduced on that issue holding that a challenged jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the trial court elsewhere instructed the jury that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that if any evidence raising the issue of selfdefense is adduced  the jury must be instructed that the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the selfdefense claim does not accord with the facts holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the defendant had to establish by evidence that outweighed the evidence against him that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent