One subtle point of difference that occurs to me, reading the question again. The relevant unlawful act might be different for V1 and V2. V2 dies as a result of the glass shattering from the window, so you would have an easier time using the criminal damage as the unlawful act for UAM committed against V2. By contrast, V1 dies running away (presumably scared) from D as a continuing assault perpetrated by D against V1, so you’re best off using the assault. If you use the assault as the unlawful act for both, then you have to deal with awkward issues of transferred malice for V2, since D only intends to scare V1.