United States v. Parry
649 F.2d 292 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is offered as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind (such as knowledge), rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, a prior consistent statement is not hearsay if offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, even if a motive to fabricate existed when the statement was made.
Facts:
- Undercover DEA agents Robert Starratt and Douglas Driver arranged three separate drug transactions.
- Scott Parry acted as an intermediary or middleman in these transactions between the agents and individuals selling drugs.
- Parry's mother received several phone calls at her home from a man named 'Bob' for her son.
- Shortly after meeting Agent Starratt in October 1974, Parry told his mother that the caller, Bob Starratt, was a narcotics agent with whom he was working.
- Parry was arrested for his role in the drug transactions in January 1975.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Parry was tried before a jury in federal district court on consolidated charges of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances.
- At trial, the defense attempted to call Parry's mother to testify about a conversation she had with her son.
- The trial court judge, without an objection from the government, ruled that the mother's testimony about the conversation was inadmissible hearsay and excluded it.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the district court entered a judgment of conviction.
- Parry, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing the trial court erred in excluding his mother's testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by excluding a witness's testimony about a defendant's prior out-of-court statement when the statement is offered not for its truth, but to prove the defendant's knowledge and state of mind, which is central to his defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Morgan, J.
Yes. A trial court errs by excluding such testimony because the statement falls outside the definition of hearsay. The out-of-court statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—i.e., that the man was actually a narcotics agent or that Parry was actually working with him. Instead, it was offered as circumstantial evidence to establish that Parry possessed knowledge of the agent's identity at the time of the events. Using an out-of-court utterance to show the declarant's knowledge of a fact does not offend the hearsay rule. Any danger of the jury misusing the statement for its truth can be mitigated by a limiting instruction. Furthermore, the statement was also admissible as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) as a prior consistent statement. The government's case implicitly, and at times explicitly, charged that Parry had recently fabricated his defense of innocent intent. Parry's prior statement to his mother was consistent with his trial testimony and served to rebut this charge of recent fabrication. The exclusion of this testimony was not harmless error, as it was the only available evidence to corroborate Parry's defense, which the jury might otherwise have found self-serving and unbelievable.
Analysis:
This case provides a classic illustration of the fundamental hearsay principle: a statement is only hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (TOMA). It clarifies that out-of-court statements are permissible evidence when their relevance depends on the fact that they were said, rather than on the truth of their content. The decision reinforces that such statements can serve as powerful circumstantial evidence of a declarant's mental state, knowledge, or intent. It also affirms a broad application of the prior consistent statement rule in the Fifth Circuit, allowing its use to rebut fabrication charges even if a motive to lie existed when the prior statement was made, thereby strengthening a tool for bolstering witness credibility.
