With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 18.06(a) (Vernon 1977); see Swanson v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 104, 18 S.W.2d 1082 (1929). The State asserts that the warrant could not have been signed and issued on March 20, 1987, because (1) according to the complaint, the affiant did not receive the informant’s report until March 25, 1987; (2) the complaint for the search warrant was filed on March 25, 1987; (3) the warrant did not “come to hand” until March 25, 1987; and (4) the warrant was executed on March 25, 1987. The State concludes that the March 20 dates are clerical errors which do not affect the validity of the search warrant. The State argues that courts must interpret affidavits and warrants in a common sense and realistic fashion. Faulkner v. State, 537 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (<HOLDING>). We agree. However, there is no reason, other

A: holding that court must use common sense in interpreting warrant containing grammatical error
B: holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived
C: holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court
D: recognizing fraud in the inducement as defense under federal common law interpreting erisa
A.