With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". all of the elements of the crime, which appellant challenges beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, we must keep in mind that the credibility of witnesses and the wei t into Burger’s occupied car at close range, causing a bullet to narrowly miss Mandy McConnell who was sitting in the back seat. (N.T., at 24.) It can be inferred that appellant intended to cause serious bodily injury to Mandy because the bullet he fired into the car missed her by only three inches. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 559 Pa. 229, 739 A.2d 1023 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829, 121 S.Ct. 79, 148 L.Ed.2d 41 (2000) (finding sufficient evidence presented to convict appellant of aggravated assault where appellant shot at and narrowly missed the victim); see also Commonwealth v. Woods, 710 A.2d 626 (Pa.Super.1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, testimony indicates that when Mandy

A: holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana
B: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
C: holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury
D: holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances
C.