Under a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, the Court must examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the government and decide whether any rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Cruz, 1998 Guam 18, P9. The Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence linking him to the injuries sustained by the victim. He points to the numerous inconsistencies of testimony which include his own statement of what he did and the victim's statement of how the crime occurred. The People contend that sufficient evidence was presented to connect the Appellant to the crime against the victim. They point to the statement of X describing his attacker. The Appellant fit that same description. Additionally, both the described attacker and the Appellant drove Nissans. The People also point out that the confession of the Appellant matched much of the evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, the People assert that the jury had more than enough evidence to rationally conclude that the Appellant committed the crime as charged. Upon review of the record, it is clear that the People's evidence against the Appellant was more than sufficient to convict the Appellant. Although there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, the task of determining the weight of the evidence and inconsistencies of testimony lies within the purview of the jury. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision.