Cited by

(adopting the MPC’s approach requiring the state to prove jurisdictional facts when the Legislature had neither adopted the relevant MPC provision nor enacted language contrary to the MPC).

-47 (1946)); (In the context of a defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury, the constitutional provision dealt with venue rather than state jurisdiction.).

For the first time in the reply brief, proposing that the State must prove jurisdictional facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

As noted by our supreme court, “[i]n 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.”

See, -40 (1995) (premeditation in Arizona of homicide committed in Mexico established subject-matter jurisdiction in Arizona because premeditation is element of first-degree murder); -16, ¶¶ 6-10 (App. 2009) (§ 13-108 establishes subject-matter jurisdiction of superior court over a cri

¶ 63 (2008) (pecuniary gain in context of contract killings “especially strong”); see also Spears, 184 Ariz. at 282, 292–93 (defendant began romantic relationship with victim in preconceived plan to obtain her truck and money); 548– 49 (1995) (pecuniary gain based on “deliberate, carefully conceived, meticulously planned, and cold-blooded scheme to kill .

(in a criminal case, “[w]hen interpreting nonjurisdictional, substantive statutes .

¶9 In State v. Willoughby, our supreme court was confronted with an appeal from a conspiracy conviction which had as its object offenses “murder, fraudulent schemes and artifices, armed robbery, obstructing a criminal investigation or prosecution, and filing a fraudulent insurance claim.”

8 At the hearing on the motion to consolidate, defense counsel stated, “we certainly don’t have any issue with the case being set in two weeks.” 7 STATE v. VILIBORGHI Decision of the Court “venue may be waived or changed,” n.7, n.7 (1995), and “[t]he failure to object to venue before trial waives the issue on appeal.”

3 STATE v. ORTEGA Decision of the Court ¶9 for the standard by which jurisdiction must be established.

(specifically declining to “equate jurisdiction with elements of the offense”).

We presume that when the legislature adopted § 13-3554 in 2000, it was aware not only of § 13-108(A)(1), , (finding "no textual limit on the reach of [A.R.S.

Although good character can be a significant mitigating factor, it deserves less weight in a case involving a murder planned in advance.14 (weighing significant past good conduct and good acts evidence against the (F)(5) aggravating factor).

In contrast, citing State 9 v. Willoughby, P.2d 1319 (19 95); Escobar-Mendez; and several out-of- state cases,7 Jackson a rgues that a criminal statute of limitation is jurisdictional and that the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution is not time barred.

(Model Penal Code is a source of current Arizona criminal statutes); Rudolph J. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona, Author’s Preface IV, at vi (1978) (1962 Model Penal Code inspired most of Arizona Criminal Code, which

2 Even though “premeditation can occur as instantaneously as ‘successive thoughts of the mind,’ we have nonetheless required proof, whether direct or circumstantial, of actual reflection.” Id.; , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); , (same).

(“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); , (same).

P.2d 542, 565 (1995) (defining premeditation as a “length of time permitting reflection”); , (same); , (same); , (same); , (same), , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); State v. Vickers (Vickers II), , (same); , (same); State v. Vickers (