FARMER, Judge.
The trial judge granted a motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty. Because we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to defeat the motion, we reverse that order. Equally obvious to us is that the trial judge actually concluded that the weight and credibility of the evidence would not support a verdict of guilty. We therefore treat the order as granting a motion for a new trial and, as treated, we affirm and remand for a new trial.
Defendant was charged with robbery by purse snatching. The facts of the case are best gathered from the trial judge's order granting the judgment of acquittal, which also sets forth in detail his analysis of the evidence, and so we turn to it:
"The victim * * * testified that while she was attempting to open the trunk of her car in a parking lot someone came up behind her and grabbed the purse which she was holding with her upper arm, ran away and jumped in a car. She was unable to describe the person who stole her purse nor was she able to describe the vehicle. She did remember that the person who stole her purse had red hair. [Defendant was asked] to turn around and display his hair for the victim. The victim was then asked to state whether or not that looked like the hair of the person who stole her purse. The victim answered, No that's not it.
"The second witness called by the State was an eye witness to the robbery who testified that although she was not 100% sure she was very sure or pretty sure that the Defendant seated in the courtroom was the person who robbed the victim of her purse. She also testified that she had picked his picture out of six which were displayed to her by the police in a photo lineup. She also testified that the description that she gave the police on the day of the robbery was to the effect that the perpetrator was about 5'9"' and weighed between 170-190 pounds and had blond hair. The Defendant was about 6'2"', 140 pounds and had brown hair. She also testified that when she first heard from the police she was told that the Defendant was in custody and that she was requested to in effect pick him out of six pictures she was shown. After she picked out the Defendant to further reinforce her opinion that she had correctly identified the perpetrator she testified that the police informed her that they had found the property of the victim on this Defendant when he was arrested. This was a false statement.
"The third witness called by the State testified that he was the lead Detective in the case and that he had shown the photo lineup to the witness. He denied having told the eyewitness that she had chosen correctly or that he had found any property of the victim on the Defendant. In fact, he admitted that he had found no property of the victim on the Defendant and that the only property ever turned up belonging to the victim was a check cashed by a Mr. Phillips in Broward County. He further testified that he had done nothing to investigate that case because he said he had an eye witness identification that the perpetrator was Mr. Smyly. No connection between Mr. Phillips and the Defendant Smyly was ever established.
"At the close of the State's case the Court was confronted with:
1. a victim who said that the Defendant was probably not the person who had taken her purse. Either that or he had changed his hair color and there was no evidence that a change had taken place.
2. An eye witness identification that wasn't 100% sure and whose identification was called into question because of improper police procedure both before and after the photo lineup;
3. evidence that someone unconnected to the Defendant was arrested for cashing checks taken from the victim.
Under such circumstances it seemed that the Defendant was probably not guilty of this charge.
"The Defendant presented his girl friend's father who testified that during the time of the occurrence (which had been established as around noon on March 18, 1993) the Defendant was sleeping on his couch in his home in Plantation, Florida. This witness' testimony was not challenged or impeached in anyway as to this fact. The crime occurred in Delray Beach approximately 45 minutes drive from the location where the Defendant was staying. The Defendant testified that he left his girl friend's house at about 3:00 with his girl friend and bought a used car then took it to a garage for some repairs and then visited his Mother. His mother testified that she saw her son between four and six p.m. and that he showed her the new used car he had just bought and told her that he
had been buying a car that day and had taken it to a garage to have it checked. This testimony was also uncontradicted. The State proved that the person that stole the purse jumped in a small white car and sped away. It was also proven that a person who owns a small white car lives across the street from the Defendant's Mother and that the Defendant had lived with his Mother up until about two years ago when he had moved out. It was established that the Defendant and the person who lived across the street from his mother with the small white car had known each other for a long time.
"Based on the above evidence the Court concluded that there was not legally sufficient evidence present upon which the jury could find other than not guilty. The Court does not view the evidence as simply conflicting or admitting of different reasonable inferences. After viewing all the evidence the Court was clearly satisfied that it would not support a conviction." [e.s.]
It is this order that we treat as effectually determining that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Defendant had moved for a judgment of acquittal [JOA] at the close of the state's case and then again at the close of all the evidence. The trial judge expressly reserved ruling on the latter motion. After the verdict was rendered, the court thanked the jury for their effort and--without hearing argument from either party--announced straightaway that he was now granting the reserved motion for JOA. While we agree with the state that the evidence was legally sufficient to defeat a motion for a judgment of acquittal, the trial judge's analysis reveals a different problem in his mind. As his last sentence quoted...
