Parvin v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
113 So. 3d 1243 (2013)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Dr. David Parvin (plaintiff) was charged with murder by the state of Mississippi (defendant) after he fatally shot his wife, Joyce, in their home. Parvin maintained that the shooting was an accident. Joyce had been sitting in a desk chair at the home computer, and Parvin testified that he had grabbed his shotgun and was running outside to shoot a beaver, a local pest in the area. Parvin testified that he tripped and that the gun accidentally discharged. That said, Parvin was inconsistent on some details, which as whether Parvin tripped over a rug or the family dog, whether his knee hit the floor, and whether the gun barrel had hit the armrest of Joyce’s chair. At trial, Parvin was convicted, largely on the strength of expert testimony. Two witnesses, Curtis Knight and Arthur Chancellor, had analyzed the crime scene and noted that the rug was undisturbed. Knight felt Joyce may have had a contact wound based on apparent gunpowder stains, and Chancellor noted that Joyce’s injury appeared to be at a downward angle. Three more experts also testified. Starks Hathcock tested the gun, Dr. Steven Hayne was a forensic pathologist who performed Joyce’s autopsy, and Grant Graham was a crime-scene analyst who prepared a computer-generated depiction of the shooting. Hathcock could not establish the distance from muzzle to wound, but Dr. Hayne testified that the weapon had been four feet away, and the pellets had entered Joyce at a downward 25-to-30-degree angle and forward approximately 15 degrees. Graham used those estimates to make his computer depiction of the incident. On appeal, Parvin argued that Graham’s computer demonstration should have been excluded as scientifically unreliable based on Hayne’s faulty calculations and unknown variables, including Joyce’s position at the time of the shooting. Parvin argued that Dr. Hayne’s opinions were faulty as Hayne based the entry angle on the alleged use of a protractor and an inaccurate assumption about when the shotgun pellets would fragment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kitchens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.