Parvin v. State, 113 So. 3d 1243

Parvin was convicted of murder; he argues Joyce Parvin’s death was an accident and the State’s evidence relied on experts and a computer-generated scene depiction.
The State’s firearms pathologist, Dr. Hayne, provided a four-foot muzzle-to-wound distance and trajectories that supported an intentional shooting, while firearms expert Hathcock testified distances could not be conclusively determined.
Grant Graham created a computer-generated depiction of the shooting based on Hayne’s estimates and other measurements, which the jury viewed.
The rug at the scene was undisplaced, and Parvin’s initial accounts differed from later statements, including a claim of accident and later admission of inconsistencies with a mistress.
Parvin’s trial court motions to exclude the computer reconstruction and Hayne’s testimony were denied; he objected and attempted to strike Hayne’s testimony during trial.
The Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the admissible basis for Hayne’s distance/trajectory and Graham’s depiction was insufficient and prejudicial; Weathersby did not warrant acquittal due to Parvin’s inconsistent post-event statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Hayne’s distance/trajectory and Graham’s reconstruction admissible under Rule 702/Daubert?	Parvin contends the measurements and replay are unreliable and speculative.	State maintains admissibility as expert testimony and demonstrative evidence.	inadmissible; highly prejudicial and unsupported by reliable methodology
Does the inadmissibility require acquittal under Weathersby?	Parvin asserts Weathersby requires acquittal if only eyewitness-like evidence supports defense.	State argues Weathersby does not apply due to inconsistencies in Parvin’s statements.	not entitled to acquittal under Weathersby
Was the issue procedurally barred, given trial objections and limine actions?	Parvin preserved the issue via motions and objections, including a pretrial motion in limine.	State contends procedural bar due to lack of contemporaneous objection.	not procedurally barred; court should consider reliability issues

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (admissibility of expert testimony requires reliable methodology)
Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207 (Miss. 1933) (Weathersby rule for eyewitness-based defenses)
West v. State, 553 So.2d 8 (Miss. 1989) (limits on speculative expert testimony)
Edmonds v. State, 955 So.2d 787 (Miss. 2007) (prohibits speculative/ inflammatory expert testimony)
McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (Daubert framework in Mississippi for expert testimony)
Goff v. State, 14 So.3d 625 (Miss. 2009) (procedural handling of evidentiary objections)