not only is the mens rea lacking, but the actual ability to cause death or bodily harm has not been demonstrated. It is well established that there can be no conviction for reckless endangerment without a present ability to inflict harm. See Commonwealth v. Gouse, 287 Pa. Super. 120, 429 A.2d 1129 (1981). “In construing the Crimes Code section on recklessly endangering, this court has recently determined that the common-law assault requirement of actual present ability to inflict harm must be shown in order to support a conviction under the statute.” Gouse at 124, 429 A.2d at 1131. Further, “the mere apparent ability to inflict harm is not sufficient. Danger, and not merely the apprehension of danger, must be created.” Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 728 (Pa. Super. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Without evidence that the defendant was, in
holding that evidence was sufficient to establish aggravated assault where appellant was seen pointing and firing a gun at two women holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept holding that although pointing an unloaded gun would generally not be sufficient to support a conviction for recklessly endangering another person where the commonwealth presented evidence that there was at least one bullet in the gun a conviction could stand holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun holding that an unloaded gun used in the commission of an aggravated assault is a deadly weapon