The matter of charging a jury is unrelated to the issue of whether an information provides adequate notice to a criminal defendant. In his second argument, Laird contended that his motion to quash the information should have been granted due to the vagueness of the phrase “appliance.” We disagree. The information in this case states that Laird “burned domestic and non-domestic waste including an appliance and electrical wire.” The Texas Administrative Code defines the term “domestic waste,” and it further specifies that “electrical wire” and “appliances” are non-domestic wastes that cannot be burned. See 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 101.1(26), 111.209(1). As such, these terms did not require further pleading in the information. See Thomas v. State, 621 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because the terms “appliance” and
holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment holding the function of a public utility is controlling not how the term is defined holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history holding that vicarious coconspirator liability need not be charged in the indictment holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance