discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stephan Andrew Cox v. State (2×) State v. Lalinde, 231 N.C.App. 308 , 750 S.E.2d 868, 871 (2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted); see also State v. Willoughby, 181 Ariz. 530 , 892 P.2d 1319, 1327 (1995) (“In the very rare case in which jurisdiction is legitimately in issue because of contradicting jurisdictional facts, Arizona’s territorial jurisdiction must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1054 , 116 S.Ct. 725 , 133 L.Ed.2d 677 (1996); People v. Cullen, 695 P.2d 750, 751-52 (Colo.App.1984) (holding that issue of jurisdiction must be submitted to the jury whe…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Denofa See, e.g., State v. Willoughby, 181 Ariz. 530 , 892 P.2d 1319, 1327 (1995) (en banc) (holding that in cases “in which jurisdiction is legitimately in issue because of contradicting jurisdictional facts, Arizona’s territorial jurisdiction must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1054 , 116 S.Ct. 725 , 133 L.Ed.2d 677 (1996); McKinney v. State, 553 N.E.2d 860, 863-64 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (“Because the prosecution must prove territorial jurisdiction, the issue must be submitted to the jury unless the court determines no reasonable jury could fail to…