Is a single witness' testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault with intent to murder?

The victims both testified that they feared for their lives and thought that appellant might return with a gun and shoot them. "The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296.) The victims' testimony is neither physically impossible nor inherently improbable. While the evidence indicated the victims fared better than appellant in the altercation, the outcome of the fight does not change that the victims reasonably believed appellant might get his gun and return to the bar, based on appellant's erratic and violent behavior. (See People v. Gaut (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1431-1432 [holding that even though defendant was in jail and could not carry out threats to former girlfriend immediately, she reasonably believed he would be released and would follow through on the threats, based on defendant's history of assaulting her].) Indeed, one might conclude that having been bested in the altercation, appellant would be more motivated than not to return with a deadly weapon.