Summary
The Eighth Circuit vacated Paul Parrow’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and remanded for a new trial, while affirming the judgment in all other respects. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding reverse Rule 404(b) evidence concerning a house owner’s prior drug convictions, and that the error was not harmless as to possession of drugs found in a safe. The court also upheld the discovery sanction striking undisclosed portions of a witness’s testimony and denying a mistrial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Kirk's prior drug-distribution convictions as reverse Rule 404(b) evidence relevant to Kirk's opportunity and knowledge concerning the drugs found in the safe.
- Whether the exclusion of Kirk's convictions was harmless as to the conspiracy count and the possession-with-intent-to-distribute count.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial and instead striking undisclosed portions of D.B.'s testimony as a discovery sanction.
Holdings
- The district court abused its discretion by excluding Kirk's prior drug-distribution convictions as reverse Rule 404(b) evidence because the convictions were relevant to Kirk's opportunity to store the drugs in the safe, sufficiently similar, not too remote, and not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion.
- The exclusion of Kirk's convictions was harmless as to the conspiracy conviction because the government presented overwhelming independent evidence of Parrow's drug-trafficking conduct and the charged drug quantities.
- The exclusion of Kirk's convictions was not harmless as to the possession-with-intent-to-distribute conviction because the convictions could have raised reasonable doubt about whether Parrow knowingly possessed the drugs in the safe.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial and striking the undisclosed portions of D.B.'s testimony as the discovery sanction.
Key quotations
“The district court abused its discretion by incorrectly applying this Court’s precedent on Rule 404(b) evidence.” (8)
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the conviction on Count 2 and remand for a new trial. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects.” (11)
Factual background
Law enforcement used a confidential informant to conduct four controlled buys from Parrow and later searched a house he leased, recovering methamphetamine and fentanyl from a concealed safe along with drug-trafficking materials. At trial, the government presented extensive testimony from dealers, customers, and co-conspirators concerning Parrow's drug trafficking. The district court excluded three prior drug-distribution convictions of house owner Clemmie Kirk as reverse Rule 404(b) evidence, although it admitted limited conviction information under Rule 609(a). The government also failed initially to identify witness D.B. as the person referred to in disclosed interview notes as a concerned citizen; the court struck undisclosed portions of D.B.'s testimony and denied a mistrial.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Parrow on both counts and found the charged quantities exceeded the statutory thresholds. The district court imposed concurrent 300-month terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated the possession conviction and remanded for a new trial, while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Remand instructions
Vacate Parrow's conviction on Count 2, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and remand for a new trial on that count. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.