A prior consistent statement is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the prior consistent statement only if the prior consistent statement is admissible to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or motive to fabricate.

United States v. Stover, 565 F.2d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 1977) (upholding trial court's admission of evidence of accused's escape from a Minnesota federal penitentiary because such "evidence was competent to show that [accused] was in the vicinity where the car was stolen and that he had both...A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule either if they are not offered to show that person's propensity or if they are not offered to show that that person engaged in conduct on a particular occasion because of his or her propensity to engage in that sort of conduct.

Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) advisory committee's note ("The express allowance of inquiry into specific instances of conduct on cross-examination in subdivision (a) and the express allowance of it as part of a case in chief when character is actually in issue in subdivision (b) contemplate that testimony of specific instances is not generally...When an exception to the character evidence prohibition makes evidence of a criminal defedant's character admissible, the testimony of a witness on direct examination about the defendant's character must take the form of reputation or opinion and it cannot consist of specific instances of the defendant's conduct.

United States v. Wenger, 427 F.3d 840, 855 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of accused's prior SEC violation where (1) such evidence "was introduced for the purpose of rebutting [accused's] defense of good faith reliance;" (2) the evidence "was relevant to the question of...Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.