where the reviewing court held that the evidence “wholly failed to prove the felonious conduct proscribed by the statute.” Id. at 231. Similarly, in this ease, we hold that there simply was no evidence to support the state’s case, and the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. By this holding, we are not suggesting that a glass or plastic bottle filled with liquid could not be the type of missile contemplated by the statute. Rather, we are merely concluding that under these circumstances, where the object did not come close to hitting the officer on his motorcycle and there was no other evidence that appellant intended it to do so, the state has failed to present a prima facie case. See, e.g., J.W.B. v. State, 419 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)(<HOLDING>); compare Wilton v. State, 455 So.2d 1142 (Fla.
holding that it was error for the trial judge to find that the throwing of an orange at a school bus without proof of either striking the bus or any person was a crime under section 79019 holding that it was error for the trial judge to answer a jurys question without giving defendants counsel an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded holding that it was appropriate for the trial court to find that lack of a prior criminal record was not a mitigating factor in light of the violent nature of the crime committed holding that while it was error for the regular judge to disqualify himself for only the habitual phase of the trial the error was harmless holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant