Any person who, wilfully and corruptly, takes away, alters, mutilates or destroys any book, record, document, archive or other property in the possession or custody or under the control of any institution, board, commission, department or officer of the state or any county or municipality or court, or who counterfeits the seal of this state or the seal of any court or public office entitled to have and use a seal, and makes use of the same, or, with evil intent, affixes any of the said true seals to any document, or who has in his possession any such counterfeited seal, and wilfully conceals the same, knowing it to be falsely made and counterfeited, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
(1949 Rev., S. 8490; 1953, S. 3280d; P.A. 78-331, S. 20, 58.)
History: P.A. 78-331 deleted reference to imprisonment specifically “in the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers”.
Section held to give a civil remedy to party injured by unlawful alteration of records. 28 C. 210. Alteration does not include making of false entries in document. 159 C. 544. Cited. 165 C. 507; 221 C. 910; 222 C. 539.
Cited. 8 CA 351; 26 CA 286.
Secs. 53-154 to 53-163. Failure to appear according to promise or bond. Escape from custody, generally. Conveying of unauthorized items into a correctional institution. Intoxication and possession of intoxicating beverages on property of, or under jurisdiction of, Correction Department. When sentence to take effect. Sections 53-154 to 53-163, inclusive, are repealed.
(1949 Rev., S. 8491–8900; 1953, S. 3281d; 1961, P.A. 312, S. 4–13; 517, S. 113; 580, S. 14–16; 1963, P.A. 12; February, 1965, P.A. 556, S. 3–5; 1967, P.A. 549, S. 7; 1969, P.A. 577; 828, S. 214; P.A. 74-280, S. 24, 25.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
State v. Cataudella, 271 A.2d 99 (Conn. 1970).
State v. Cataudella, 271 A.2d 99 (Conn. 1970).
· cites it 6× “In a substituted information in six counts the defendant was charged with the crime of wilfully and corruptly altering books, records or documents in the possession or under the control of the department of motor vehicles of the state of Connecticut in violation of § 53-153 of…”
Silver v. Holtman, 90 A.3d 203 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiff alleged that Birmingham’s conduct constituted the unlawful removal of a public record in violation of General Statutes § 53-153. He also alleged that Birmingham, through Holtman, informed Barrante that Birmingham would not accept the affida- vit for record, even…”
Simmons v. Budds, 338 A.2d 479 (Conn. 1973).
· cites it 2× “ntiff has assigned as errors the court’s conclusions that the temporary regulations were lawfully adopted by the university senate acting within the scope of its delegated powers; that the regulations were not violative of either the Connecticut constitution or of the United…”
State v. Kari, 608 A.2d 92 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 6× “In this criminal appeal, the defendant, Nelson Kari, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction of unlawful removal or alteration of records in violation of General Statutes § 53-153. 1 The Appellate Court concluded that his conviction should be…”
State v. Kari, 600 A.2d 1374 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of unlawful removal or alteration of records in violation of General Statutes § 53-153. 1 The same jury acquitted the defendant of two counts of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence in…”
State v. Nicoletti, 512 A.2d 235 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The defendant, a state police trooper, was tried on a substituted information charging him with three counts of unlawful removal of records in violation of General Statutes § 53-153 and two counts of attempted coercion in violation of General Statutes *352 §§ SZa-té) 1 and…”
Reynolds-El, No. 3:25-cv-00951 (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2025).
· cites it 6× “§ 2071 (concealment, removal, or mutilation generally); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-153 (unlawful removal or alteration of records); or the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, Conn.”
State v. Kari, 602 A.2d 9 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “286 , is granted, limited to the following issue: “Was there sufficient evidence in the record to support a reasonable finding that the defendant acted ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of Connecticut General Statutes § 53-153?””
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.