she swore to its accuracy before a notary public. At that instant, the crime became choate. Welch v. State, 71 Tex.Crim. 17, 157 S.W. 946, 946-47 (1913). There was no need for anyone else to see or rely upon the document. Id. d. Was the Oath Required or Authorized by Law In her concluding paragraph under Points One, Two and Three, the Appellant closed by saying that the “written statement is not a statement ‘required or authorized by law to be made under oath.’” We again disagree. The stipulations evinced that Chambers was a notary public. As such, she was authorized by law to administer oaths. Tex.Gov. Code Ann. § 406.016(a) (Vernon 1990). Her authority did not wane because nothing required the Appellant to act under oath. Campbell v. State, 43 Tex.Crim. 602, 68 S.W. 513, 514 (1902) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the oath was one authorized by law. e.
holding a fourth amendment violation can only be raised by those whose rights were violated by the search itself not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence holding that a notary has authority to swear persons whether it be to necessary affidavits and those required by law or those which are purely voluntary holding those who are to perform the command of the writ are necessary parties holding that bond protecting those persons who do work or furnish materials did not protect bank lending money to contractor for payment to those persons holding that a plaintiffs lack of knowledge regarding the number of affected persons does not bar class certification when defendant has the means to identify those persons at will