Harrigan v. State, 184 So. 3d 657

Defendant was stopped in Miami-Dade driving a pickup later shown to have been stolen three weeks earlier from Vic’s Auto Shop in Monroe County; he fled after police approached and after an officer (Rodriguez) fired shots and struck the defendant.
State charged defendant with possession of a stolen vehicle (knowing or should have known), fleeing/eluding, reckless driving, leaving scene, driving with suspended license, resisting without violence, aggravated assault on an officer, grand theft (possession), and felony criminal mischief.
A surveillance video from Vic’s Auto Shop (allegedly showing the original theft) existed in Monroe County; defense sought its disclosure under Brady but the State did not have it and the defendant did not pursue the court-offered appointment of a private investigator to obtain it.
The State’s theory of knowledge rested on vehicle condition (no key, removed radio/monitors, exposed wires) and defendant’s flight; State did not accuse defendant of being one of the original thieves.
Trial court admitted evidence of a December 2007 incident (Williams rule) where defendant, in a stolen vehicle, hit a police car and fled, to show intent/lack of mistake; defendant later accepted standby counsel and moved for mistrial (denied).
Jury convicted on all counts; defendant appealed arguing Brady violation and improper admission of Williams evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady nondisclosure of surveillance video	State: no knowledge/possession of Monroe County video; offered to produce if in State’s possession	Defendant: video was favorable (would show he was not one of the original thieves) and material; nondisclosure violated Brady	No reversible error; defendant failed to prove video was material to charged possession offense and failed to obtain it despite court offer
Admission of 2007 Williams evidence	State: 2007 incident sufficiently similar to show intent/lack of mistake when defendant aimed truck at officer	Defendant: 2007 crime not sufficiently similar and too remote in time (and on appeal argued not relevant to a material fact)	Admission upheld; preserved objections limited to similarity and remoteness; appellate-only relevance argument not preserved and would fail on the merits

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (due process requires disclosure of favorable material evidence)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (Brady disclosure obligations even without specific request)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Brady includes impeachment evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (framework for Brady materiality analysis)
Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (admissibility of similar prior crimes to prove intent or absence of mistake)
Deren v. State, 985 So. 2d 1087 (Brady elements stated under Florida law)
Parker v. State, 89 So. 3d 844 (materiality requires reasonable probability verdict would differ)