791 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983); Winkles v. State, 634 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Richardson v. State, 622 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Juarez v. State, 586 S.W.2d 513 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Ramsey v. State, 579 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Doescher v. State, 578 S.W.2d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Jones v. State, 568 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Lopez v. State, 535 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Evans v. State, 530 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Riojas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Carvajal v. State, 529 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Abercrombie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Powell v. State, 505 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Collins v. State, 502 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); McCrea v. State, 499 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Sessions v. State, 498 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Cook et al. v. State, 497 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Hegdal v. State, 488 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); Polanco v. State, 475 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Stoddard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Adair v. State, 482 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Nicol v. State, 470 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 969, 90 S.Ct. 452, 24 L.Ed.2d 435 (1969); Ruiz v. State, 457 S.W.2d 894 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970) (Concurring opinion by Presiding Judge Onion); Gaston v. State, 440 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969); Hall v. State, 394 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App. 1965); Mc Lennan v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 83, 3 S.W.2d 447 (1928). This Court's interpretation appears to be in accord with the majority viewpoint, that an otherwise insufficient warrant application may not be supplemented by unrecorded oral testimony.
"The averments that the informant (1) lacked a criminal record; (2) had a reputation in the neighborhood (ostensibly a good one); and (3) was well thought of by fellow associates was minimally adequate and comported with the requirements of Aguilar." In Wetherby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 852, the averments found sufficient therein were that the informant was: "(1) Gainfully employed and (2) was well thought of by the people in the community in which he lived; and (3) that the informant had no criminal record with this department (Austin) or with the Department of Public Safety."
In his ninth ground of error appellant alleges that the trial court erred in sustaining the State's objection to defense counsel's request for the names of the persons described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as "users and sellers of narcotics' who were seen frequenting appellant's apartment. In Wetherby v. State, 482 S.W.2d 852 (1972), this court said, ". . . it is well settled "that a court will not look behind the allegations of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant." Brown v. State, 437 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.App. 1968)."