Paul Parrow was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance involving methamphetamine and fentanyl. The case stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop and subsequent investigation where law enforcement identified Parrow as a drug dealer and executed a search warrant on a house he leased on Esplanade Avenue. During the search, officers recovered drugs and paraphernalia from a safe hidden inside a bench. The house was owned by Clemmie Kirk, who had prior drug convictions. At trial, the defense sought to introduce Kirk's prior convictions to show she had the opportunity to store the drugs in the safe, but the district court excluded this evidence under Rule 404(b), allowing only the name and date of the convictions to be admitted for impeachment purposes. Additionally, the government failed to disclose that a witness identified as a 'concerned citizen' in police notes was actually D.B., a witness who later testified about Parrow's drug trafficking. The district court struck D.B.'s drug-related testimony as a sanction but denied a motion for a mistrial.
The Eighth Circuit addressed two primary issues: the exclusion of reverse Rule 404(b) evidence and the discovery sanction. Regarding the evidence, the court applied the standard for abuse of discretion, noting that Rule 404(b) should be construed broadly as a rule of inclusion. The court found that Kirk's prior convictions were relevant to the element of knowing possession because they established her opportunity to store drugs in the safe, a fact not otherwise proven by the government. The court rejected the district court's finding that the evidence was too remote or prejudicial, citing precedent that convictions less than thirteen years old are not too remote and that limiting instructions can cure potential confusion. The court concluded that because the government presented no evidence of Parrow storing drugs in the safe, the exclusion of evidence suggesting Kirk could have done so was not harmless error for the possession count. However, for the conspiracy count, the court found the error harmless because overwhelming testimony from other dealers and customers established Parrow's guilt independent of the safe evidence. On the discovery issue, the court reviewed the district court's sanction for abuse of discretion. It found that the government did not act in bad faith and that striking the undisclosed testimony was an appropriate lesser sanction that cured any prejudice, especially since the excluded testimony was duplicative of other witnesses on the conspiracy count.
Parrow must face a new trial solely on the possession with intent to distribute charge. His conviction for conspiracy remains intact, and his concurrent sentence is partially preserved pending the outcome of the retrial. The decision clarifies that reverse Rule 404(b) evidence regarding a co-possessor's opportunity to commit the crime is admissible and that its exclusion can be reversible error when the government's case on possession is otherwise weak.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download