to the issues being tried. ¶40 The court found that defense counsel mentioned in opening argument and in cross- examination that a number of other patients with legal claims have been referred by Durdens’ counsel to certain of the physicians who testified for Durdens — the implication being that those physicians were unworthy of belief and perhaps were part of a conspiratorial plan to bilk Chief. The trial judge observed that the physicians who appeared at trial were truthful, competent and professional in every respect; that their integrity as medical professionals was impugned by counsel’s statements; and that there was no evidence supporting any conspiracy among those doctors, Durdens and their counsel. ¶41 Finally, the court concluded that Durdens’ case was prejudic 3 P.2d 625 (<HOLDING>). ¶43 Finally, it is necessary that we address
holding lower court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence because proof of a modus operandi is only relevant when there is an issue regarding the defendants identity holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of family conflicts including an extramarital affair when there was no evidence of any causal connection with those and plaintiffs mental disorders holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion