首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Water Pollution: Unauthorized Discharge; Texas Constitutional Law: Unconstitutionally Vague Criminal Statutes
【24h】

Water Pollution: Unauthorized Discharge; Texas Constitutional Law: Unconstitutionally Vague Criminal Statutes

机译:水污染:未经许可的排放;德克萨斯州宪法:违宪的模糊刑事法规

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Valero is charged by information with an unauthorized discharge under Texas Water Code 7.147. Under the version in existence on the date of the discharge a person commit an offense by discharging or allowing the discharge of any waste or pollutant Valero initially files a motion to quash the information arguing it is not specific enough to show how the statute was violated. The State then files a motion to amend the information to include the statutory definition of a discharge. The trial court grants the motion to amend and denies the motion to quash. A second motion to quash based on insufficient notice to allow it to prepare a defense is not ruled upon. Valero then files a supplemental motion seeking to have the statute declared unconstitutional. That motion is denied and Valero pleads nolo contendre and appeals the decision not to quash the information. Held: affirmed. While a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him through an accurate and intelligible information, that right may be waived as to alleged defects in the charging instrument by failing to timely object to the instrument. In this case, Valero, by agreeing to the complained-of language in the information as part of its nolo contendre plea, waived its right to object. Notwithstanding the waiver, the court discusses the merits of Valero's claims. The central objection is that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied because of the purported criminality of failing to act to prevent a discharge when there may be no such duty to act. A corporation, however, may be subject to strict liability criminal offenses. In this case, the alleged discharge came from a facility owned by Valero. While the statute may be read to essentially criminalize a person's failure to stop a discharge caused by a third party, that is not the case here. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
机译:根据德克萨斯州水法规7.147,对Valero处以未经许可的排放信息。根据在排放之日存在的版本,一个人通过排放或允许排放任何废物或污染物进行犯罪,Valero最初提出动议以废除该信息,理由是该信息不够具体,无法表明该法规是如何被违反的。然后,纽约州提出一项动议,要求修改信息以包括法定的解雇定义。初审法院批准修正案,并否认废除该动议。没有根据第二次罢工动议而作出的通知不足以允许其准备辩护。随后,瓦莱罗提出了一项补充动议,力图宣布该章程违宪。该动议被否决,瓦莱罗(Valero)恳求诺洛竞争者,并呼吁不撤销信息的决定。举行:肯定。虽然刑事被告享有宪法上的权利,可以通过准确和可理解的信息获悉针对他的指控的性质和原因,但由于未及时反对起诉书中的指控缺陷,可以放弃该权利。在这种情况下,瓦莱罗通过同意信息中被抱怨的语言作为其集体诉讼请求的一部分,放弃了其提出异议的权利。尽管有豁免,法院仍在讨论Valero索赔的案情。中心反对意见是该规约在适用上不符合宪法规定,因为据称在没有义务履行义务时未采取行动阻止解除职务是犯罪行为。但是,公司可能会受到严格责任的刑事处罚。在这种情况下,据称释放来自瓦莱罗拥有的设施。虽然该法规可以理解为实质上将一个人未能阻止由第三方造成的释放定为刑事犯罪,但事实并非如此。该法规在宪法上并不模糊。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号