### NUM BER 13-09- 0005 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
BR IA N SKO LN IK, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of Sa n Patricio C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t Br ian Sk oln ik appeal s fr om hi s c onvic ti on for murde r. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 19. 02(b ) ( Verno n 20 03). At th e close of the St ate ’s e vid e n ce, Sko lnik p l e a d e d g u i l t y

a n d t h e j u r

y s e n t e n c e d h i m t o fo rt y y e a rs ’ i mp r i s o n me n ta n d a s s e ss ed a $10,000 fine. By

tw o i ss u e s, S kol nik

arg ues: ( 1) the tr ial co urt er re d w hen i t admi tted
ev ide nce of extra n e o us mis condu ct becau se the p ro bati v e v alu e of the ev ide nce w as2

subs tanti all y

outw eig hed by

unfair pr eju dic e; an d ( 2) the tr ial co urt er re d w hen i t i nst ru cte d t h e j u r y o n “ g o o d c o n d u c tt i m e ” a s i t i s r e l a t e d t o a p p e l l a n t ’ s p o t e n t i a l p r i s o n s e n t e n c e
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Skol nik ’s w ife, A mber Skol nik , ar ri v ed home in the e arly hours of Apr il 28, 2007, after a ni g ht o u t. Skol nik co nfronted her

abouther

w her eabouts and a v iol ent, phy si cal alt er cat ion ens ued t hat resul ted i n Amber ’s deat h. Skol nik w as ind ic ted for

the all eg ed murde r of A mber Skol nik and ple aded not g uil ty

. Skol nik chang ed his ple a to g uil ty at t he cl ose of the St ate’ s e v ide nce. During the pun ishm ent pha se of the trial, the State presen ted ex trane ous o f fense ev ide nce consi st in g o f a v ide o of sex ual ac ts inv olv ing Sk oln ik and his w ife w ho w as unco nsciou s at the time due t o alleged intoxication. T he video w as take n by Skolnik, in his hom e, two mon ths prior to Am ber’s mu rder. II. D I S CUS S I ON A. Adm issib ili ty

o f th e Vi deo The st andard of r ev iew for t he admi ss ibi li ty

of ev ide nce is abus e of di sc re ti on. Ma rt in v. State , 173 S.W .3d 4 63, 46 7 ( T e x . C ri m. App. 2005)

. Und er an a buse of dis cr eti on s tandard w e w il l uphol d the deci si on of t he tr ial co urt c oncer nin g the admis si bil it y of ev ide nce unl ess the ru li ng r est s o uts ide the z one of r eason abl e di sag re ement. Id

. In hi s first is sue, Sk oln ik co nten d s th a t the v ide o off er ed by the Stat e dur ing the puni shmentphas e of hi s t ri al w as more pr eju dic ial than probati v e and shoul d hav e been
ex cl uded. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 403. Skol nik asser ts thatbyallo w ing the v ide o to be ent er ed int o ev ide nce, the tr ial cour t per mitt ed hi s c har act er to be unfair ly

pr eju dic ed and that the3

a c t s p e rf o rm e d o n t h e vid e o o ve rs h a d o we d a n y p o s it ive a s p e c t s o f h is li fe t h a tm ig h th a ve other w is e mi ti g ated his puni shment

. The Stat e c ontends thatthe act s p er formed by Sko lnik on the v ideo w ere clearly “bad acts” and that the jury shou ld be ab le to use this informa tion when de term ining an app ropriate sente nce f or Skolnik. "Rel ev ant e v ide nce" is “ ev ide nce hav ing any tendenc y to make t he ex is tenc e of any fact th at is of

conse quence to the dete rmina tion o f the act ion m ore prob able or less prob able than it w ould be w ithou t t h e e v iden ce.” T EX
. R. E V ID . 401

. Ev ide nce of an
extr aneous off ense is r ele v ant w hen i t rev eal s a patt er n of law br eaki ng , dec epti on, a nd
ev asi on or w hen i t rev eal s a patt er n of cond uct

. See A shi re v. Sta te , 296 S.W .3d 3 31, 3 41 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 9, no pet. ); Fowler v. Sta te , 1 2 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 0 7 , 3 1 1 (T e x. App.–B eaumont 2004, no pet .)

. Ev ide nce is al so re lev ant t o s entenc ing i f it “i s h elp ful to the jur y in determi nin g the appropr iat e sentenc e f or a par ti cul ar def endant in a par

ti cul ar cas e." Rod

ri guez v. State , 203 S.W .3d 8 37, 8 4 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. “The tes t for
re lev ancy

of the ev ide nce is much br oader at the p uni shmentst ag e, t he pur pose bei ng to all ow the fact finder

as much useful infor mati on as pos si ble i n d e cid ing the appropr iat e pun ishm ent for the ind iv idua l def end ant .” Me ndi ola v. Sta te , 92 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 3 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 1995 , pet . ref ’d). Rul e 403 sta tes , how ev er , t hat rele v ant e v ide nce “m a y b e ex cl uded [ at t he pun ishm ent pha se] if

its probat iv e v alue is substan tially outweig hed bythe da nger of unf air pr eju dic e .
. . ." Id

. "Unfai r pr eju dic e" means an u ndue tendenc y to sug g esta de ci si on on an i mprop er

bas is

. See R oger

s v . St ate , 991 S.W

. 2 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9); Fl or es v. State , 125 S.W .3d 744 , 746 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 03, no pe t.). “Rule 403 favors admissibility of relev ant ev iden ce, an d the presum ption is that relevant evidence4

w ill be more proba tiv e tha n prejud icial.” Mo ntgom er y v . St ate , 8 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 9 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 1). T o de term ine w het herthe prejudicial v alue of the ad mitt ed relevant e v iden ce o u twe ig h s it s p ro b a t ive va lu e , we m a y co n s id e r t h e fo ll o win g fa c t o rs : (1 ) t h e p ro b a t ive
v al ue o f t he e v i de nc e; ( 2) t he p ot en ti al o f t he e v i de nc e to i mp r es s t he j ur y i n s om e emoti onal , y et i ndel ibl e w ay ; ( 3) the Stat e’s need for th e ev ide nce; and (4 ) th e t ime the pr oponent needs to dev elo p the ev ide nce. See Rod ri guez , 203 S .W .3d a t 843 . Ev iden ce of prior cr im e s o r b a d a c ts ma y be use d by the jury

to det ermin e w hat sente nce is appropr iat e f or

the defendant. Fi

eld s v . St ate , 1 S.W .3d 687 , 688 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99). M o r e o v e r , a rt i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 o f t h e c o d e o f c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e s t h a t e v i d e n c e o f a defendant’ s b ad ac ts is admi ssible follo w ing a find ing of g uil t reg ar dle ss of the p lea and “reg ar dle ss of w hether he has pr ev iou sl y been charg ed w it h or final ly con vict e d of the crime or act. “ T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37. 07, § 3(a)(1) (Vernon Su pp. 200 9). Impor tantl y i n thi s c ase, Sk oln ik

w as conv ic ted u n d e r se ct ion 19.02 of the Tex as Penal C ode. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19.02( b)

. Sect ion 19.02( d) is a prov is ion of the
mu rder statu te w hich sta tes th at at the pu nishm ent pha se of a trial, a def end ant may raise the i ss ue as to w hether

the murd er

arose from “ the i mmediat e i nfluenc e of sudd en pas si on arising from an ad equate cause .” Id. § 19 .02 (d). “S udd en p assion ” is “passion directly
c a u sed b y

and arising out of

provocation b y

the ind iv idua l kil led.” Id. § 19.02(a )(2). “A deq uate caus e” i s a “ cause th a t wou ld commonl y produce a de g re e of ang er , rag e, resen tm ent , or terror in a person o f o rdinary tem per, suf

f icient to rende r the min d incap able of cool ref lection .” Id. § 1 9

. 0 2 (a )( 1 ). If t h e d e fe n d a n tca n a f f ir m a t iv e ly p ro ve b y a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce that the d eath w as caus ed by su dden pa ss ion ar is ing from5

an adeq uate cause, t h e deg re e of the off ense is r educe d from a firs t- deg re e felony to a sec ond- deg re e felony

. Id

. Skoln i kr ai s ed t he i s s ue o f s ud de n pa s s i on a t th e pu ni s hm en t ph as e of h i s t rial. Skoln ik arg ued th a t h e a cted w ith rage, passio n an d resen tm ent in the m urde r of his
w i fe

 ̄ that he di d notplan to kil l her , and that he onl y “lo st it .” Sk oln ik

al so ass erted s udden passio n in his closing argume nt, and the jury charge cont aine d a provisi on in w hich the jury
w as g iv en th e opti on that it coul d unani mousl y find Skol nik act ed unde r “s udden p ass ion .” In ad dit ion , Sk oln ik

prov ide d ev ide nce that ind ic ated he had b e en a law -a bid ing ci ti z en lea din g up t o hi s w ife’s mur der

. He tes ti fied that he had no cr imi nal hist or y and that he had
ser v ed as a member

of the U nit ed St ates N av y for eig ht y ears. Sk oln ik w as als o empl oy ed
as an Inv est ig ati v e As si sta nt for the Dep artment of Homel and Se cur it y at the t ime of Amber ’s m u rd e r. T her e i s a ls o ev ide nce in the record tha t Sk oln ik w as under

the impress ion hi s w ife w as hav ing one or mor e e xtra- mari tal aff airs a nd had all eg edl y had others i n the pas t. Testimo n y fr om Amber ’s famil y and Skol nik

hi msel f sug g est s t hat Amber w as cons ide ri ng se eki ng a div or ce from Skol nik before h er deat h. Fi nal ly , t he v ide o in q uest ion co ntai ned g ra phi c i mag es of S kol nik per forming sex ual act s u pon hi msel f and his w ife w ho w as uncon sc iou s a t t he ti me, al leg edl y due to i ntox ic ati on. Skol nik tes ti fied tha t he m ade the ta pe h imse lf ; bot h Skoln ik an d his w ife ap pea r in the v ideo ; Skolnik tes ti fied th at he kn ew

hi s w ife w as too i ncapa ci tated to cons ent a nd admi tted that w hat h e h a d do n e w a s wron g. In t his ca se, Sk oln ik ple aded g uil ty to v iol entl y

mur der ing hi s w ife by

st ra ng ula ti on, drowning, and blun t hea d traum a
. T he p roba tiv e v alue of the evidence and the St ate 's
nee d for the video w ere high beca use th e Sta te use d the v ideo to c o u n ter Skoln ik’s6

assertio n tha t he ha d mu rdered his w ife be cause of “sudde n pa ssion,” an a ssertion w hich
w oul d i mpact the j ur

y 's as ses sment of punis hment, and to respo nd to the tes ti mony that Skol nik had been a g ood, law -a bid ing ci ti z en unti l he murder ed hi s w ife. See Rod ri guez , 203 S. W .3d a t 843 ; Fowler , 126 S.W .3d a t 311 ; Mend iola , 9 2 4 S. W .2 d at 16 3 . A lt h o u gh the c ontent s o f the v ide o c oul d hav e emoti onal ly aff ect ed th e j ur

y , w e s ti ll conc lud e that the nature of the cr ime, the v ide o's pr obati v e v alu e, and the Stat e’s need for the ev ide nce to count er Sk oln ik ’s as ser

ti ons ide nti fied abov e outw eig h any pr eju dic ial w e i g h t

the v ide o may hol d. See id

. The v ide o w as relev ant a nd hi g hly probati v e. Thus, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis cr eti on i n al low ing the Stat e’s ev ide nce of ex tr aneous mis condu ct to be admit ted. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37.07, § 3( a) (1 ); Martin , 173 S. W .3d a t 467

. Skol nik ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. Charge Error In hi s s econd i ss ue, S kol nik arg ues that th e t ria l co urt er re d w hen i t i ncl uded language relate d to “good con duct time” in the jury charge. W hen conf ronte d w ith a jury ch a rge iss u e , a n ap p e lla te co u rtm u stf irs t d e te rm in e w h e th e r er ro r exis ts in th e ch a rge and, if so , w hether

any har m ex tended from the e rror
. N go v . St ate , 175 S.W .3d 7 38, 7 43 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; see Mi ddleton v. State , 125 S.W .3d 450, 45 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 3). Skol nik

ch all eng es the fol low ing l ang uag e from t he j ur y ch arg e: Under the law a ppl

ic able in thi

s c ase, the defenda nt, if se ntenc ed to a ter mof im pr is onm e n t, may ear

n ti m e off the per iod of inc ar

cer ati on imp o s e d t h ro u g h t h e a w a rd o f g o o d co n d u c t t ime

. Pr is on aut hor itie s may award g ood cond uct tim e to a p risoner w ho e x hibits good beh avior, dili gence i n c a r r y i n g o u t p r i s o n w o r k a s s i g n me n t s , a n d a t t e mp t s a tr e h a b i l i t a t i o n
. I f aT he l an gu ag e us ed i n t he j ur y c ha r ge d ur i ng t he p un i sh m en t p ha se o fSkol ni k’ s t r i al e xa ct l y f ol l ow s 1 t he l angua ge o ft he T exas Code of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. ar t i cl e 37

. 07, sect i on 4 ( a) , whi ch st at es that “ [ i ] n a penal t y pha se of

t he t r i al ofa f el ony case i n whi ch t he puni shm ent i s t o be assessed by t he j ur y ra t her t han th e c o u rt” th e c o u rt s h a l l in c l u d e th a t l a n g u a g e in th e ju ry c h a rg e
. See T EX
. C OD E
. C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt. 37. 07 § 4 (a). 7 pr is oner eng ag es in mis condu ct, pr is on aut hor it ies may al so tak e aw ay

al l or part of any g ood cond uct tim e ea rned bythe prison er. It is a lso possib le tha t the length of time f or w hich th e de fend ant w ill be i mpri soned mig ht be r educe d by the aw ar d of parole

. Und er the law appl ic abl e i n thi s c ase, i f the defendant is se ntenc ed to a ter m of i mpri sonment , he w il l not become eli g ibl e for parole unti l the a ctu al ti me ser v ed eq ual s one- hal f of the sent ence impos ed or 30 y ears, w hic hev er is l ess , w it hout cons ide ra ti on of any g ood condu ct ti me he may ear n. If the defendant i s s entence d to a ter m of les s t han four y ears, he mus t s er

v e at lea st tw o y ears b efore he i s eli g ibl e f or parol e. El ig ibi li ty

for p ar ole does not g uar antee that parole w il l be g ra nted. It canno t ac cur

atel y b e pr edicte d how t

he par ole l a w and goo d cond uct tim e m ight b e app lied to this def end ant if he is senten ced to a term of i m pr is onm ent, because t

he appl ic ati on of thes e l aws wi ll depend on deci si ons m ade by

pr is on and par

ole auth or

it ies

. Youm ay con sider the existen ce of the paro le law and goo d con duct tim e. However, yo uare not to consid er the e xten t to w hich go od co ndu ct ti m e m ay be awarded to or for feited by this

particul ar defendant. You ar

e not to con sider the m ann er in w hich th e pa role law

m ay be app lied to th is par ticul ar defe ndant

. (E mphasi s a dded.) 1 Skol nik arg ues that the c harg e does not ap ply to him becau se he c annot acc ru e good con duct time d ue to his murde r convi ction a nd is the refore no t eligible for ma nda tory super v is ion

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . §§ 508.147 –.148 (V er non 2004) , 508 .149 (a )( 2)8

(V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. Skol nik co ntends thatthe lan g uag e of the sta tute w as har mf ul to him beca use th e jury

m ay ha v e inf erred tha t he would be e lig ible to rece iv e good con duct time . Th e Sta te asse rts that th e jury charge w as a prop er instruction requ ir e d b y article 3 7 .0 7 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re
. See T EX
. C ODE
. C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 3 7 .0 7 , § 4( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. W e ag re e  ̄ n o e r r o r e x i s t s i n t h e c h a r g e , t he lan g uag e of w hic h i ncl uded an i nst ru cti on s et forth by the Leg is lat ur e. Al thoug h Sk oln ik

i s c or re ct that “g ood condu ct ti me” is not av ail abl e to him due t o his mur der

co nv ic ti on, see T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. §§ 508.147 –.148, the is sue of the v ali dit y of the j ur y ch arg e and it s appli cat ion to defendants conv ic ted of murde r has been s ettl ed by the Stat e’s hi g hestcr imi nal co urt. In Luqui s v . St ate , a pr is on i nmate pl eaded g uil ty to
mu rdering a fe llow

inma te. 72 S.W .3d 355 , 357 -58 ( T ex. Crim. App

. 200 2). On ap pea l, appel lan t c hal len g ed the incl usi on of a “g ood conduc t time” inst ru cti on in the jur y ch arg e, s ta ti ng th at i t w as “ mi s l ea di ng an d er r on eo us.” Id. a t 3 62. In uph olding the trial court’s deci si on to i ncl ude t he g ood c onduc t t ime ins tr uct ion , the cour t of cr imi nal appeal s s tated that arti cl e 37. 07, s ect ion 4( a) of the Tex as Code of

C ri minal Procedu re “ re q uires the t ri al judge to instru ct the jury in the precise wo rd in g t h at th e stat ute recites.” Id . at363; see T EX
. C ODE
. C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37.07, § 4( a)

. The la ng uag e of 37 .07, sec ti on 4( a) st ates that in cas es w her e the defend a n t h a s been found g uil ty of murde r and t he j ur y i s t o assess p unish me nt, “the court sha ll charge the jury in w riting as follows . . . .” T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 3 7 .0 7 , § 4 (a ). T h e s ta tu te t h e n p ro ce e d s to r e cit e t h e e xac t la n gua ge us ed i n th e g i v en c ha r g e i n th e i ns ta nt c as e. The us e of th e w ord “ s ha l l ” i nd i c at es a mandator

y duty , nota mer e s ug g est ion , for the t ri al cour t t o foll ow

the sta tute. Luq uis , 72 S.W .3d a t 363

. The Luq uiscou rt a lso not ed th at i t i s o nly natu ra l for a jur

y to spec ula teSk ol ni k ar gues i n hi s re pl y br i eft hat t he j ur y char ge i s unco nst i t ut i onal and v i ol at es hi s due pr ocess 2 r i ght s. T exas Rul es of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e st at e t hat an appel l ant “ m ay f i l e a r epl y add r essi ng a ny m at t er i n t he ap pe l l ee ’ s bri ef. ” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 3. A r epl y br i efi s not f or t he p ur pose ofr ai si ng n ew i ssues. See D al l as Count

y v. G onz al es , 1 8 3 S .W .3 d 9 4 , 1 0 4 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ); see a l so Lo pez v. Mont em ayor , 131 S. W

. 3d 5 4, 61 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o 20 03, pet

. den i ed)

. T he St at e di d no t r ai se t he due pr ocess i ssue t hat Sk ol ni k add r esses f or t he f i r st t i m e i n hi s r epl y br i ef

. T hus we do not r each t he i ssue o n a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 3 8 .3 ; D a ll a s C o u n ty , 183 S. W

. 3d a t 104

. 9 as to ho w

parole w il l impac t a defendant’ s sent ence, and arti cl e 37.07 “a ppears t o be an eff ort t o i mpartto the ju ry re le vant i nformati on s o tha t t he i nev it abl e w onder ing i s b oth informe d an d circumscribe d.” Id . at368- 69 ( Johns on, J ., conc ur ri ng ). A jury charge th a t f o ll ows the relev ant statu te is suf f icient an d, th eref ore, pro per. Ri ddle v . St ate , 888 S.W .2d 1, 8 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1994) ; Esc obar v. Sta te , 28 S.W .3d 7 67, 778 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, no pet.) . As in Luq uis , Sk oln ik ’s j ur y ch arg e track ed th e l a n guag e of sec ti on 4( a) ex act ly

. See Luq uis , 72 S .W .3 d at3 63

. W e th eref ore conclu de th at th e trial court did no t err in denying Skolnik’s request to exclude th e stat uto ry lan g uag e. See Riddle , 888 S.W .2d a t 8; Esc obar , 28 S.W .3d at 778. Bec ause ther e w as
no er ro r found in the c harg e, w e ne e d n o t d eter mine if har m ex is ted. See N go , 175 S.W .3d a t 743 ; s e e a l s o M idd leton , 1 2 5 S.W .3d at 453 . Skolnik’s secon d issue is
ov er ru led

. 2 III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 15th day of Jul y , 201 0.