Stevenson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 21970.,21970. |
| Citation | 167 S.W.2d 1027 |
| Parties | STEVENSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Smith County Court; J. Byron Saunders, Judge.
B. B. Stevenson was convicted of polluting a fresh-water stream, and he appeals.
Reversed and dismissed.
M. H. Barton, of Overton, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for the offense of polluting a fresh-water stream. The punishment assessed is a fine of $300.
By motion to quash appellant questions the sufficiency of the complaint and information on two grounds: First, because the same do not inform him of the particular means used in the commission of the alleged offense; and second, because under Section 2 of Article 698a of Vernon's Penal Code, it is permissible under certain conditions to discharge salt water into fresh-water streams and these conditions are not negatived in the information.
Omitting the formal parts, the information, which follows the language of the complaint, reads as follows: "That B. B. Stevenson, * * * heretofore, on or about the 8 day of September, 1941, in the County of Smith, State of Texas, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly pollute a certain watercourse and public body of water, to-wit: Wright Creek, in said County, by then and there throwing, casting and depositing, and causing to be thrown, cast and deposited therein crude petroleum, oil, oil refinery wastes and oil well wastes and other polluting matters and substances to-wit: salt water, mineral water, acids, sulphur water and sewage in said watercourse and public body of water, thereby then and there endangering, menacing and causing harm and injury to and the destruction of fish life and other aquatic organisms contained in the waters of such watercourse and public body of water."
It will be noted that the information charges appellant with having committed the offense by all the means denounced by the statute. The averments relative to the means employed are in the conjunctive, which seems permissible under the established rules of pleading in criminal cases. In the case of Comer v. State, 26 Tex.App. 509 (in fact, p. 512) 10 S.W. 106, at page 107, this court, in passing upon a similar question, said: "If several offenses are embraced in the same general definition, and are punishable in the same manner, they are not distinct offenses, and may be charged conjunctively in the same count."
This rule was reaffirmed in the case of Johnson v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 171 S. W. 211.
In the instant case, the information charged the commission of the offense by all the ways and means stated in the statute in accordance with the established rule of pleading applicable in this state.
With reference to the failure to negative the existence of the conditions which permit the discharge of salt water into fresh water streams, we deem it sufficient to say that the exception or proviso is no part of the definition of the offense nor descriptive thereof. It is in a separate and distinct section; hence it is not necessary to negative the same. See Branch's Ann.Tex.P.C., p. 263, sec. 510, and authorities there cited. See also Williams v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 238, 39 S.W. 664; Newman v. State, 58...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State
...and destruction of both statutes. Ex parte Sanford, supra; Moran v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 645, 122 S.W.2d 318; Stevenson v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 312, 167 S.W.2d 1027. Under the authorities cited and the rule announced thereby, if my brethren are correct in saying that the crime of theft by f......
-
Porter v. State
...v. State, 135 Tex.Crim. 645, 122 S.W.2d 318 (1938); Ex parte Sanford, 163 Tex.Crim. 160, 289 S.W.2d 776 (1956); Stevenson v. State, 145 Tex.Crim. 312, 167 S.W.2d 1027 (1943). A review of these cases shows that both Sanford and Stevenson rely on Moran for the proposition that whenever two ar......
-
American Plant Food Corp. v. State
...yet provide for different penalties, thereby rendering the statutes so indefinite as to be inoperative, citing Stevenson v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 312, 167 S.W.2d 1027. Initially we observe that Article 7621d--2, supra, establishes the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, and Section 3.05 the......
-
Salazar v. State, 40960
...exceptions in the indictment charging such offense.' See also McClane v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 343 S.W.2d 447; Stevenson v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 312, 167 S.W.2d 1027; 1 Branch's Ann.P.C.2d Ed., Sec. 530, p. The exceptions separately contained in Section 4 of Article 489c, supra, are cle......