Appellant challenged her conviction of interfering with a 911 call, arguing that the evidence of her guilt was insufficient. Appellant argued, and respondent did not dispute, that the evidence concerning appellant’s intent was entirely circumstantial. Because the circumstances proved at trial were consistent with a rational hypothesis inconsistent with appellant’s guilt, the Court of Appeals held that her conviction must be reversed. The court affirmed her uncontested convictions. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.