(a) A person is guilty of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence if, believing that a criminal investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency or an official proceeding is pending, or about to be instituted, such person: (1) Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such criminal investigation or official proceeding; or (2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in such criminal investigation or official proceeding.
(b) Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is a class D felony.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 157; P.A. 15-211, S. 9.)
History: P.A. 15-211 amended Subsec. (a) by adding provision re criminal investigation conducted by law enforcement agency and making technical and conforming changes.
Cited. 214 C. 540; 236 C. 514; 237 C. 339. Section applies, no matter what stage the police have actually reached in their investigation, provided defendant believes it is probable that an official proceeding will arise; omission of the term “investigation” from section excludes situations in which defendant believes only an investigation, but not an official proceeding, is likely to take place. 314 C. 354.
Cited. 1 CA 540; 6 CA 394; 25 CA 624. Section does not require a temporal proximity between the alleged act and the subsequent official proceeding; element re pending or about to be instituted official proceeding was satisfied when defendant reasonably could have contemplated that an official proceeding was likely to arise. 147 CA 53. Subsec. (a)(1): The word “conceal” is not defined in the section or elsewhere in the Penal Code, but a commonly understood meaning is to prevent disclosure or recognition of something and a jury could reasonably find that the defendant's placing of his vehicle in a private driveway with several other vehicles after striking the victim with his vehicle was an act of concealment. 227 CA 636.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
116
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
O'BRIEN v. Superior Court, 939 A.2d 1223 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
O'BRIEN v. Superior Court, 939 A.2d 1223 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 20× “Furthermore, these principles have a statutory counterpart in General Statutes § 53a-155, which makes it a felony to destroy or to tamper with evidence while an official proceeding is pending.”
State v. Stephenson, 207 Conn. App. 154 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 17× “…‘‘physical evidence,’’ the legislature intended to incorporate its definition in § 53a-146 (8) as an element of § 53a-155 because ‘‘physical evidence’’ is included in the title of § 53a- 155; despite the title of § 53a-155, the plain language of the text of § 53a- 155…”
Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 905 A.2d 1165 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Although these sanctions provide a limited deterrent effect, with the exception of an entry of default judgment, none of them attempts to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of his underlying civil action.”
State v. Foreshaw, 572 A.2d 1006 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 14× “A jury found the defendant, Bonnie Jean Foreshaw, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), 1 of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35, 2 and of tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes §…”
State v. Perez, 80 A.3d 103 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 13× “The defendant, Eddie Alberto Perez, once mayor of the city of Hartford (city), 1 appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of bribe receiving in violation of General Statutes § 53a-148 (a), fabricating evidence as an accessory in violation of General…”
State v. Guerrera, 142 A.3d 447 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 8× “In a single, consolidated trial, a jury found the defendant, Michael Guerrera, guilty of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 (a) and 53a-59 (a)(1), conspiracy to commit the assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48…”
State v. Rivera, 844 A.2d 191 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Rivera, was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, 1 felony murder in violation *353 of General Statutes § 53a-54c, 2 burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (2), 3 arson in the second degree…”
State v. Ancona, 854 A.2d 718 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 5× “See generally General Statutes §§ 53a-155 (a) (2) and 53a-48 (a); General Statutes (Rev.”
State v. Camacho, 924 A.2d 99 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The defendant, Marco Camacho, directly appeals, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), 1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of: four counts of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a; 2 four counts of felony murder in violation of…”
State v. Otto, 43 A.3d 629 (Conn. 2012).
· cites it 4× “, was convicted of the murder of the victim, Shamaia Smith, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, [1] and two counts of tampering with evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 (a)(1), [2] in connection with his subsequent attempts to conceal the crime.”
Spak v. Phillips, 857 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2017).
“In 2010, Spak was arrested by Phillips and charged under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-155 with destroying evidence related to the alleged discharge of illegal fireworks.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-155(a) — 3 cases
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-155(a)(1) — 1 case
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-155(a)(2) — 1 case
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.