Court Opinion

ID: 9653574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:49:09.897453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:00.063505
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant again strenuously insists that we erred in holding that the trial court cannot go behind the affidavit for a search warrant which, on its face, complies with the law and show that it is invalid.
Our original opinion properly disposed of this contention and nothing of value could be added by further discussion.
*300It is further insisted that the affidavit and warrant are defective in that two persons are named therein and signed the affidavit and that many times therein the words “affiant” and “his” are used denoting one person for the reason that the same is uncertain and indefinite.
The examination of each instrument as a whole and their context point to the fact that they were executed by two persons. The sufficiency of the instruments is supported by the opinion of Judge Morrow in Wilson v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 290 S.W. 1103, 1104:
“* * * The use of the word ‘his’ in the caption does not give character to the affidavit, but the whole context, including the jurat and signatures, is to be considered. Viewed in that light, the writing leads definitely to the conclusion that it was not made by one person alone but by two persons.”
Appellant urges that the search warrant does not show on its face to have been issued by a magistrate of Howard County, in that, the space usually provided for naming the county in the jurat on the warrant is left blank, therefore the warrant is insufficient.
This omission in the jurat of the warrant is not fatal. This exact contention was before this court in Alexander v. State, 123 Tex. Cr. R. 65, 57 S.W. 2d 157, where we held:
“* * * a search warrant may be issued by a magistrate when a written, sworn complaint is made to him, which contains four requisites, named. It is not laid in said article as a requirement that such written complaint be dated, or that the name of the precinct or county of the residence or jurisdiction of the magistrate be set forth. If we look to article 415, C.C.P., it provides that an affidavit for information may be made before any officer authorized to administer oaths; while article 23, Rev. Civ. Stats. 1925, defines an affidavit as a statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it, and sworn to before some officer authorized to administer oaths. We have no statutory definition of ‘affidavit’ in our Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.”
*********
“* * * The same thing was held by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in the well-considered case of Blackburn v. Com., 202 Ky. 751, 261 S.W. 277, in which appears the apparently *301sound statement that the jurat is not part of the affidavit, under the great weight of authority, unless made so by statute. Nowhere in our statute is it required that the date be inserted in the jurat, or that it contain the number of the precinct or name of the state of the jurisdiction.”
Appellant contends that the averments in the affidavit of grounds to show probable cause comes from two sources, and are indefinite and confusing and cannot support the issuance of the search warrant.
The affidavit, when considered as a whole, shows that the affiants had reason to believe and did believe the facts therein stated, because they were so informed by two credible persons.
We remain convinced that the affidavit was sufficient and supports the issuance of the warrant.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.