the further distribution of cocaine, would be shown. We also note a conflict among the various states regarding quantum of proof necessary to prove jurisdiction. See anno: Comment note— necessity of proving venue or territorial jurisdiction of criminal offense beyond reasonable doubt, 67 ALR3d 988. The parties have neither argued nor briefed this issue, thus its resolution must await another case in which the issue is clearly presented. 8 Rotenberg, Extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction and the state criminal law, 38 Tex L R 763, 767-768 (1960). 9 United States v Smith, 680 F2d 255, 257 (CA 1, 1982), cert den 459 US 1110 (1983); Rivard v United States, 375 F2d 882, 885 (CA 5, 1967), cert den sub nom Giroleau v United States, 389 US 884 (1967). 10 See, e.g., Smith, n 9 supra at 257 (<HOLDING>); Rivard, n 9 supra at 885 and ns 5-9
recognizing aiding and abetting trespass holding death sentence proportional in a case where the aggravators were murder committed during the course of enumerated felony prior violent felony and hac and the following nonstatutory mitigating factors were found remorse unstable childhood positive personality traits and acceptable conduct at trial recognizing aiding and abetting conversion holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill recognizing six bases territorial national protective universal passive personality and objective territorial