Is it necessary to point a firearm directly at the victim in order to commit an assault with a firearm?

It is not necessary to point a firearm directly at the victim in order to commit an assault with a firearm. (People v. Raviart (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 258, 263.) The act of drawing a gun into a position in which it could be used when a person is within its range is sufficient to support an assault conviction. (Id. at p. 266.)

In People v. Lathus (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 466, this court upheld an assault with a firearm conviction where the defendant, who was a passenger in a moving vehicle, fired at a stalled vehicle. One of the bullets struck a person standing outside the stalled vehicle. The defendant claimed he did not know anyone was near the vehicle and therefore lacked knowledge that he was endangering anyone. This contention was rejected. We explained: "[W]hen an act inherently dangerous to others is committed with a conscious disregard of human life and safety, the act transcends recklessness, and the intent to commit the battery is presumed; the law cannot tolerate a deliberate and conscious disregard of human safety." (Id. at p. 470.)

In People v. Thompson (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 780, evidence showing that the defendant pointed a revolver toward two sheriff's deputies, aiming the gun between them while pointing the gun downward, was sufficient to support an assault with a firearm conviction because the gun "was in a position to be used instantly." (Id. at p. 782.)