"The trial court has the power to grant a new trial nisi additur when it finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate." Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 635, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct.App. 2006). The denial of a motion for additur is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
This issue has not been preserved for appellate review as Washington did not object to the closing argument at trial. See Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 633 n.1. 640 S.E.2d 467, 471 n.1 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When a party fails to make a timely objection to an improper closing argument, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."). Because the bad acts evidence was relevant and fit a bad acts exception and its probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
This issue has not been preserved for appellate review as Washington did not object to the closing argument at trial. See Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 633 n.1. 640 S.E.2d 467, 471 n.1 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When a party fails to make a timely objection to an improper closing argument, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."). Because the bad acts evidence was relevant and fit a bad acts exception and its probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion for additur, the appellate court must determine whether the court acted within its discretion. Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 635, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. 2006). "The trial court has the power to grant a new trial nisi additur when it finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate."
In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion for additur, the appellate court must determine whether the court acted within its discretion. Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 635, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. 2006). "The trial court has the power to grant a new trial nisi additur when it finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate.
However, Stokes-Craven never called this misstatement to the trial judge's attention. Given that there was no objection to the extrapolation of total profit in Austin's closing argument, its alleged impropriety cannot be the basis for reversal here. E.g., Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 640 S.E.2d 467 (Ct.App. 2006). Further, the trial court's unobjected-to misstatement in its order reversing punitive damages is not a basis for reversal. E.g., Statev. Covert, 382 S.C. 205, 675 S.E.2d 740 (2009) (error must cause sufficient prejudice to warrant reversal).
Thus, Grandparents did not preserve this issue for appeal. See Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 633, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. (2006) ("An objection withdrawn at trial constitutes an express waiver of the issue and does not preserve the issue for appellate review."). Although this court can overlook procedural rules when the rights of minors are involved, we decline to do so here because the consideration of the guardianship documents ultimately aided the court in determining the children's best interest.
Thus, Grandparents did not preserve this issue for appeal. See Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 633, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. (2006) ("An objection withdrawn at trial constitutes an express waiver of the issue and does not preserve the issue for appellate review."). Although this court can overlook procedural rules when the rights of minors are involved, we decline to do so here because the consideration of the guardianship documents ultimately aided the court in determining the children's best interest.
Although we find Detective Elliot's testimony about finding the Xbox 360s and laptops in Lisa Livingston's trailer was admissible, we also find Hemingway waived any objection when he told the trial court he felt the testimony was beneficial to him. See Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 634, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An objection withdrawn at trial constitutes an express waiver of the issue and does not preserve the issue for appellate review."). Additionally, on cross-examination, Hemingway asked Detective Elliot what items were found in Livingston's trailer. See
Although we find Detective Elliot's testimony about finding the Xbox 360s and laptops in Lisa Livingston's trailer was admissible, we also find Hemingway waived any objection when he told the trial court he felt the testimony was beneficial to him. See Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 634, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An objection withdrawn at trial constitutes an express waiver of the issue and does not preserve the issue for appellate review."). Additionally, on cross-examination, Hemingway asked Detective Elliot what items were found in Livingston's trailer.