## Facts

- Scott Parry was tried and convicted in federal court of conspiring to distribute PCP and possessing with intent to distribute PCP and dl-methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- The government’s case relied primarily on testimony from two undercover DEA agents who said Parry served as an intermediary in arranging three drug transactions.
- Parry admitted participating in the transactions but claimed he acted in good faith, believing he was assisting the agents in locating drug sources.
- Parry testified that he learned the caller “Bob Starratt” was a narcotics agent days before meeting him and believed there was an implied understanding that he would help the agents find dealers.
- To corroborate his claimed belief and timing, Parry sought to present testimony from his mother about a conversation shortly after Parry first met Agent Starratt (months before Parry’s arrest).
- Outside the jury’s presence, Parry’s mother testified that Parry identified the caller as “Bob Starratt,” a narcotics agent Parry was working with, and told her not to worry.
- The district court excluded the mother’s testimony as hearsay, and the jury did not hear it.
- On appeal, Parry argued the excluded testimony was admissible to show his state of mind and to rebut an implied charge that his account was recently fabricated.

## Issues

1. Whether Parry’s out-of-court statement to his mother was admissible for a non-hearsay purpose—showing his state of mind and the reasonableness of his claimed belief that he was helping law enforcement.
2. Whether the statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive.
3. Whether excluding the corroborating testimony, if erroneous, was harmless given its relationship to Parry’s sole defense.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the district court erred in excluding the mother’s testimony as hearsay.
- The court concluded the testimony was admissible as non-hearsay because it was offered to show Parry’s state of mind and the reasonableness of his professed belief, not to prove that Starratt was in fact a narcotics agent.
- The court also held the testimony was independently admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) as a prior consistent statement offered to rebut the government’s implied charge of recent fabrication.
- Because the excluded evidence directly supported Parry’s only meaningful defense and bore on credibility and intent, the error was not harmless.
- The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is hearsay only if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; an out-of-court statement offered to show the declarant’s state of mind, belief, or the reasonableness of conduct may be admissible as non-hearsay.
- When a defendant’s intent or good-faith belief is central, corroborative evidence that the defendant expressed the belief at the relevant time can be material to the defense and credibility assessments.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is admissible when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, the statement is consistent with the testimony, and it is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive.
- For Rule 801(d)(1)(B) use to rebut fabrication, the prior consistent statement must predate the alleged motive to fabricate.
- Erroneous exclusion of corroborating defense evidence is not harmless when it affects the jury’s ability to evaluate the defendant’s only defense theory.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court wrongly excluded the defendant’s mother’s testimony, which was admissible to show the defendant’s state of mind and as a prior consistent statement rebutting an implied claim of recent fabrication, and the exclusion prejudiced the defense.


United States v. Parry, 649 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981)