is a pleading that’s earlier filed in this case, and here’s what it said, and then we don’t have to go down the road of and there was another party in the case that got dismissed out on summary judgment. The abandoned pleading related to factual averments Goodrich had once asserted against Jester, an entity no longer in the case and whose identity and interests would have to be explained to the jury if the abandoned pleading were to be received in evidence. Again assuming, for the sake of argument, that the abandoned pleading was actually admissible, confusion of the issues is a recognizable ground for refusing to receive otherwise admissible evidence and we would find no abuse of discretion in refusing to receive it under the circumstances present here. See Brown, 856 S.W.2d at 56 (<HOLDING>). Point II is also denied and the judgment is
holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to sever because trial of three defendants would not create confusion holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence when the potential for jury confusion and the introduction of collateral issues justified the exclusion of evi dence holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative 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