The Supreme Court of Guam has said that its "[d]uty is to interpret statutes in light of their terms and legislative intent." People v. Kim, 2015 Guam 25 ¶ 13 (quoting People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 8). "When interpreting a statute, 'the plain language of a statute must be the starting point.'"

"Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo." People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 8. "The trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."

This alone is enough to sustain a conviction. See 9 GCA § 25.40 (2005) ("The testimony of a victim need not be corroborated . . . ."); People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 31 (holding that Guam law does not require corroboration of a victim's testimony). Additionally, the testimony of the victim's mother included a statement by Diego where he admitted that he was sick and needed help. Tr., vol. 3 at 86 (Sept.

With regard to sufficiency, Guam statutory provisions and case law establish that the personal-knowledge testimony of a victim regarding sexual assault is itself sufficient to establish such allegations and does not require additional corroboration. See 9 GCA § 25.40 (2005); People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 31. Consequently, L.J.H.'s testimony as to each of the other instances satisfies the third factor.

"Absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning prevails." People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 8 (quoting Sumitomo Constr. Co. v. Gov't of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 ¶ 17).

Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo." People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 P 8 (quoting Ada v. Guam Tel. Auth., 1999 Guam 10 P 10).IV.