This court "reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to ascertain whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 P 6. This standard is highly deferential to the jury's verdict and not deferential to the trial court's decision to deny the motion for a judgment of acquittal.

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.'"

An attempt conviction requires proof of the defendant's "intent to engage in conduct which would constitute such crime" and "a substantial step toward commission of the crime." Id. § 13.10; see People v. Flores , 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 12. That is exactly what happened here when Lopez intentionally communicated with "Brit" from within the Territory of Guam in furtherance of his goal of sexual penetration.

[*P42] Under Guam law, an attempt to commit a criminal act is a crime separate and apart from the crime constituting the actual commission of the criminal act. See People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 ¶ 12 (referring to "the crime of attempt"); People v. Angoco, 2004 Guam 11 ¶ 25 n.8 (noting that "[a]ttempted robbery is a lesser-included offense of robbery"); 9 GCA § 13.10 (2005) ("A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent to engage in conduct which would constitute such crime were the circumstances as he believes them to be, he performs or omits to perform an act which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime."); 8 GCA § 105.58 (2005) (noting that an "attempt" to commit a crime may be a lesser included offense of the actual crime); cf. People v. Songeni, 2010 Guam 20 ¶ 15 ("[I]t is clear that an 'attempted crime' under Guam law differs from the crime of which it is an inchoate version only insofar as it was not a completed version of that crime."). Only the separate crime of attempt requires proof of a "substantial step" in furtherance of its commission.

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).

"When a criminal defendant asserts that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to ascertain whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 P 6 (quoting People v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 32 P 7 (citations omitted)). IV. DISCUSSION

" People v. Angoco, 2007 Guam 1 P 49. "'[O]ur duty is to interpret statutes in light of their terms and legislative intent.'" People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 P 8 (quoting Carlson v. Guam Tel. Auth., 2002 Guam 15 P 46 n.7). "'Absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning prevails.'" Id. (quoting Sumitomo Constr. Co. v. Gov't of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 P 17).

People v. Root, 2005 Guam 16 P 9 ("It is '[o]ur duty to interpret statutes in light of their terms and legislative intent' and thus, '[a]bsent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain meaning prevails.'") (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Flores, 2004 Guam 18 P 8). GEC has voter signatures on file, but did not compare the signatures on file with those in the petitions.