Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (2026)

Tampering with physical evidence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person commits the offense of tampering with physical evidence if he or she alters, destroys, suppresses, removes, or conceals any record, document, or thing with the purpose of impairing its verity, legibility, or availability in any official proceeding or investigation.
1. Tampering with physical evidence is a Class D felony if the person impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony.
2. Otherwise, tampering with physical evidence is a Class B misdemeanor.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2611; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2611.

Research References

ALR.

Negligent spoliation of evidence, interfering with prospective civil action, as actionable. 101 A.L.R.5th 61.

Effect of spoliation of evidence in products liability action. 102 A.L.R.5th 99.

Electronic spoliation of evidence. 3 A.L.R.6th 13.

Ark. L. Rev.

Note, Altered or Absent Evidence: The Tort of Spoliation: Wilson v. Beloit Corp., 43 Ark. L. Rev. 453.

Comment, To the Spoliator Go the Spoils: Arkansas Rejects Spoliation of Evidence as a Tort Cause of Action, 61 Ark. L. Rev. 283.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

The mere existence of overlapping provisions in this section and § 5-54-105 does not render either statute constitutionally infirm; there appears to be no impermissible uncertainty in the definitions of the respective offenses. Puckett v. State, 328 Ark. 355, 944 S.W.2d 111 (1997).

Applicability.

Criminal statutes prohibiting tampering with evidence do not impose a duty upon an employer to preserve component parts of a machine which are needed for an employee injured by the machine to maintain an action against the manufacturer of the machine. Wilson v. Beloit Corp., 725 F. Supp. 1056 (W.D. Ark. 1989), aff'd, 921 F.2d 765 (8th Cir. 1990).

Trial court properly dismissed adminstratrix's tort claim for a third-party's alleged spoliation of the evidence in a wrongful death suit because a remedy had to be sought though a means other than an individual tort claim; criminal sanctions were still available under this section, even though a new tort was not recognized, and attorneys who were guilty of spoliation were still subject to discipline. Downen v. Redd, 367 Ark. 551, 242 S.W.3d 273 (2006).

Double Jeopardy.

Where the charges of breaking or entering and tampering with physical evidence were based upon the same elements, the two felonies were merged into one, and defendant could only be convicted of one offense; thus, defendant's conviction for tampering with physical evidence was affirmed and his conviction for breaking or entering was reversed and dismissed. Blair v. State, 16 Ark. App. 1, 696 S.W.2d 755 (1985).

Evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to support conviction. Scott v. State, 1 Ark. App. 207, 614 S.W.2d 239 (1981).

Trial court did not err in convicting defendant of misdemeanor tampering with physical evidence because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant tampered with the physical evidence when he threw the drugs into the toilet to flush them with the purpose of impairing the availability of the drugs for use in prosecution, and the fact that defendant did not actually impair or obstruct the prosecution was why he was not convicted of a felony; by defendant's own admission, he was given the drugs to flush down the toilet when the police were seen approaching the house, and he took the drugs to the bathroom and threw them into the toilet but did not succeed in flushing them. Singleton v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 145, 381 S.W.3d 874 (2011).

Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence, in violation of subsection (a) of this section, was supported by the evidence because the state produced substantial evidence that defendant altered the position of a murder victim's body and the murder weapon with the purpose of impairing the investigation into her death. Shatwell v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 568, 430 S.W.3d 142 (2013).

Substantial evidence did not support defendant's conviction for tampering with physical evidence because the evidence failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, and the jury had to speculate that defendant's confession was actually properly recorded and later removed, that the device did not malfunction, and that defendant deleted and added recordings; there was no direct evidence that defendant ever touched the digital recorder. Hartman v. State, 2015 Ark. 30, 454 S.W.3d 721 (2015).

Defendant's directed-verdict motion on the tampering with physical evidence charge was inadequate to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as the motion failed to adequately specify any deficiencies in the State's proof. Even had the motion been specific enough, there was sufficient evidence presented to support the conviction because defendant threw the gun in the river after shooting the victim; while defendant claimed that the discharge was accidental and that the disposal was not to impede any investigation or prosecution, the jury was not required to believe his version of events. Webb v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 436, 587 S.W.3d 252 (2019).

Intent.

Evidence held sufficient to support a finding of intent to tamper with the evidence. Scott v. State, 1 Ark. App. 207, 614 S.W.2d 239 (1981).

Misdemeanor.

Evidence held insufficient to find that the defendant impaired the prosecution of a felony as prohibited by this section, so conviction had to be reduced to misdemeanor tampering with evidence. Scott v. State, 1 Ark. App. 207, 614 S.W.2d 239 (1981).

Cited: Wilson v. Beloit Corp., 921 F.2d 765 (8th Cir. 1990).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Vidos v. State, 239 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vidos v. State, 239 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “1997), a Class Y felony, and tampering with physical evidence, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (Repl. 1997), a Class D felony.”

State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013). “§ 13-2809 (2010); Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (2005); Colorado, Colo.”

Goff v. Harold Ives Trucking Co., Inc., 27 S.W.3d 387 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (Repl. 1997). Besides the existence of the foregoing nontort remedies are several strong policy concerns that weigh against the recognition or adoption of spoliation as a new tort.”

Puckett v. State, 944 S.W.2d 111 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 4× “At most, Puckett argues his actions were chargeable under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (Repl. 1993), the offense of tampering with physical evidence, which is a Class D felony.”

Gabriel Emmanuel Walton v. State of Arkansas, 2023 Ark. App. 409 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (Repl. 2016). In his directed-verdict motion, Walton argued that the State had not “proved or provided a list of evidence they feel was tampered with in this action and there should be a directed verdict on that.”

Hartman v. State, 2015 Ark. 30 (Ark. 2015). · cites it 2× “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the jury had to speculate to convict Hartman of tampering with physical evidence.”

Jeffery McPherson v. State of Arkansas, 2024 Ark. 163 (Ark. 2024). · cites it 6× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (b)(1). Otherwise, it is a Class B misdemeanor.”

State v. Martine, 371 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “…(Ala Code § 13A-10-129(b)), Alaska (Alaska Stat § 11.56.900(4)), Arizona (Ariz Rev Stat § 13-2801(3)), Arkansas (Ark Code Ann § 5-53-111(a)(1)), Connecticut (Conn Gen State Ann § 53a-146(8)), District of Columbia (DC Code § 22-723(a)), Hawaii (Haw Rev Stat § 710-1076(2)),…”

Shatwell v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 568 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The same standard-ofjreview6 points we applied to Shatwell’s challenge of his murder conviction apply here.”

Singleton v. State, 381 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Tampering with Physical Evidence Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-53-111 (Repl.2005) pertains to tampering with physical evidence and provides: (a) A person commits the offense of tampering with physical evidence if he or she alters, destroys, suppresses, removes, or conceals…”

Burdell v. Commonwealth, 990 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1999). “610 ; Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-53-111; Florida, Fla.Stat.”

Lorenzo A. Green v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 320 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111 (b)(1) (Repl. 2016) (elements of tampering with physical evidence).”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111(a) — 2 cases

Hartman v. State, 2015 Ark. 30 (Ark. 2015). “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the jury had to speculate to convict Hartman of tampering with physical evidence.”

Shatwell v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 568 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111(a)(1) — 1 case

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-111(b)(1) — 3 cases

Zereak Oliver v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. App. 186 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025).

Jason Lawson v. State of Arkansas (Ark. Ct. App. 2026).

Cross (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.