be legally adequate to confer jurisdiction under MCL 762.2. Once this initial gatekeeping determination has been made, however, and assuming that the exact location of a boundary line is not at issue in the case, the trier of fact must next determine as a factual matter whether the alleged act, consequence, or other condition that would confer territorial jurisdiction under MCL 762.2 did in fact occur within the state of Michigan. The clear majority rule in this country is to require the trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged act, consequence, or other condition that would confer jurisdiction has in fact occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the matter is placed in issue. See, e.g., State v Butler, 353 Md 67, 79; 724 A2d 657 (1999) (<HOLDING>); State v Willoughby, 181 Ariz 530, 538; 892
holding that when evidence exists that the crime may have been committed outside marylands territorial jurisdiction and a defendant disputes the territorial jurisdiction of the maryland courts to try him or her the issue of where the crime was committed is factdependent and thus for the trier of fact 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 the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state holding that a court had the power pursuant to  105a to compel a defendant to deliver her property which was the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding from outside the courts territorial jurisdiction holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins