Whether sufficient evidence exists to convict a defendant is ultimately an analysis and application of the law to the facts and, as such, is properly reviewed de novo. The standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence on appeal is whether, upon 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. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166, ¶ 58, 357 Mont. 142, 237 P.3d 74.
We review the record for sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the jury's role as factfinder to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, and ultimately determine which version of events should prevail. Thus, it is immaterial to our review whether the evidence could have also supported a different result. State v. Bekermans, 2013 MT 11, ¶ 20, 368 Mont. 235, 293 P.3d 843.