# Dikes v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 10, 1932 · 120 Tex. Crim. 127

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3974572

## Case

- **Full name:** George M. Dikes v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 10, 1932
- **Citations:** 120 Tex. Crim. 127; 48 S.W.2d 259; 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 184
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Hawkins
- **Judges:** Christian, Hawkins
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3974572

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
HAWKINS, Judge.
— The affidavit stated as facts things which if true furnished “probable cause” for the issuance of the search warrant. Appellant again urges in his motion for rehearing that the trial court erred in not permitting him to go behind the affidavit and show that, though positive in form, it was in fact made upon information and belief, and to show that the affiants had no personal knowledge at the time they made the affidavit that appellant was manufacturing or selling intoxicating liquor in his private residence or on his premises. These questions were discussed at some length in Ware v. State, 110 Texas Crim. Rep., 90 , 7 S. W. (2d) 551 , and Bird v. State, 110 Texas. Crim. Rep., 99, 7 S. W. (2d) 953 , and in the other cases referred to in our original opinion. In addition to those we cite Wells v. State, 114 Texas Crim. Rep., 63 , 24 S. W. (2d) 439 ; Boone v. State, 114 Texas Crim. Rep., 653 , 26 S. W. (2d) 655 ; Cordona v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 538 , 31 S. W. (2d) 542 ; Pond v. State, 119 Texas Crim. Rep., 306 , 45 S. W. (2d) 962 ; Hinkley v. State, 119 Texas Crim. Rep., 254 , 45 S. W. (2d) 581 ; Vicera v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 584 , 27 S. W. (2d) 545 ; Montgomery v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 469 , 31 S. W. (2d) 440 . The holding in all of the cases mentioned both in the original opinion and hereinabove support the conclusion announced in the original opinion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3974572. Public record. Not legal advice.