¶ 6. This Court reviews the grant or denial of a motion for directed verdict de novo, and will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 7 (Miss. 2000). So long as substantial evidence supports the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fairminded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, then this Court will affirm.
" Sumler v. E. Ford, Inc. , 915 So. 2d 1081, 1089 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Whitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2d 1, 10 (Miss. 2000) ). "[T]he plaintiffs still bear the burden of demonstrating the need for compensatory damages beyond nominal damages[.]" Whitten , 799 So. 2d at 10.
"Where error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, this Court ‘will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.’ " Whitten v. Cox, 799 So. 2d 1, 13 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2000) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So. 2d 110, 113 (¶ 12) (Miss. 1999)). "The Supreme Court will reverse the lower court’s denial of a motion for a new trial only if, by doing so, the court abused its discretion."
Wilson v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 883 So.2d 56, 63-66 (¶¶ 26-37) (Miss. 2004); Am. Bankers' Ins. Co. of Fla., 819 So.2d at 1208-09 (¶¶ 40-45); Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 9-13 (¶¶ 13-25) (Miss. 2000); Adams, 744 So.2d at 741-44 (¶¶ 16-22); Morrison, 680 So.2d at 805-07. ¶ 48.
The standard of review of the trial court's denial of a remittitur is the same as the standard for an additur. Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 18 (¶ 45) (Miss 2001). On appeal, we will not reverse the decision of the trial court unless it amounts to an abuse of discretion. Burge, 856 So.2d at 580 (¶ 6). As we stated regarding the trial court's denial of Teasley's motion for an additur, the jury award will not be set aside unless it is deemed outrageous and unreasonable.
Adams did not raise the issue again until the instant posttrial motion. 799 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2000). Notably, a false imprisonment claim under Mississippi law is comprised of the same elements as a claim brought pursuant to Montana law: “(1) detention of the plaintiff; and (2) that such a detention was unlawful.”
Robinson Prop. Group, L.P. v. Mitchell, 7 So.3d 240, 243 (Miss.2009) (quoting Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 13 (Miss.2000) (quoting Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (Miss.1999) )).
¶ 27. "The standard of review regarding admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Where error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, this Court `will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.'" Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 13 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (Miss. 1999)).
¶ 17. The standard of review for a trial court's decision either to admit or exclude evidence is abuse of discretion. Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 13 (Miss. 2000); Robinson Prop. Group, L.P. v. Mitchell, 7 So.3d 240, 243 (Miss. 2009); Beverly Enters., Inc. v. Reed, 961 So.2d 40, 44 (Miss. 2007).
Ladnier v. State, 878 So.2d 926, 933 (Miss. 2004) (citing Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 13 (Miss. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original)). ¶ 22. Dr. B.R. Patel, a colleague and friend of Nyasha, testified about a meeting he had with the two DeHenres in October 1996, just months before the shooting.