Opinion ID: 881853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the traffic tickets

Text: The appellant disputes the testimony on which he was convicted. In criminal cases, [o]ur standard of review when presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. McDonald (1987), 226 Mont. 208, 210, 734 P.2d 1216, 1217 (citation and quotations deleted). The police officers who issued the traffic tickets testified that they were present during the violations and ticketed Layzell after observing his failure to stop for the traffic signal and stop sign. While Layzell may disagree with the officers' testimony, a rational trier of fact could have relied on their statements in finding him guilty.