What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of assault if he was stopped at the front door of his neighbour's house by the police?

But he was stopped because the door was locked, because they didn't let him in." Based on the record, including the shortness of time between defendant's attempt to gain entry through the garage and his appearance at the front door, as well as his behavior at the front door, it was not speculation for the jury to infer that defendant intended to enter the residence if he was able to gain entry through the front door. Moreover, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant had the intent to enter the neighbor's house for the same purpose that he had only a minutes earlier when he partially entered through the dog door with a knife: to commit theft, assault with a deadly weapon, or assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. Regarding an assault, although defendant no longer had a weapon on him when he was at the front door, the jury could reasonably conclude, based on defendant's conduct up to that point as well as his continued threatening and physically aggressive behavior with the police thereafter, that he would commit more than a simple assault, either by his own hand or with an object from the neighbor's residence. (See People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028 ["the use of hands or fists alone may support a conviction of assault 'by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury' "].) In sum, considering the entirety of defendant's conduct that night, a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to enter the neighbor's residence through the front door for the purpose of committing a felony or theft. (See Gonzales, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 294.)