In State v. Hyatt, 355 N.C. 642, 666, 566 S.E.2d 61, 77 (2002), the defendant argued that the State's evidence was insufficient, because the State relied largely on the testimony of witnesses who had criminal records, made prior inconsistent statements, and gave self-serving testimony. 355 N.C. at 666, 566 S.E.2d at 77. Our Supreme Court rejected this argument and stated: This argument ignores the fact that when weighing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are to construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Defendant's proposition would occasion the fall of a long-standing principle in our jurisprudence that we are unprepared to abandon: that it is the province of the jury, not the court, to assess and determine witness credibility. Id. at 666, 566 S.E.2d at 77.