Section 13E. (a) As used in this section the following word shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meaning:—
''Official proceeding'', a proceeding before a court or grand jury, or a proceeding before a state agency or commission, which proceeding is authorized by law and relates to an alleged violation of a criminal statute or the laws and regulations enforced by the state ethics commission, the state secretary, the office of the inspector general, or the office of campaign and political finance, or an alleged violation for which the attorney general may issue a civil investigative demand.
(b) Whoever alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the record, document or object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, whether or not the proceeding is pending at that time, shall be punished, by (i) a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years, or both, or (ii) if the official proceeding involves a violation of a criminal statute, by a fine of not more than $25,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years, or both.
(c) The record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(d) A prosecution under this section may be brought in the county where the official proceeding was or would have been convened or where the alleged conduct constituting an offense occurred.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Ware, 27 N.E.3d 1204 (Mass. 2015).
Commonwealth v. Ware, 27 N.E.3d 1204 (Mass. 2015).
“His motion for postconviction discovery was predicated on the fact that Farak pleaded guilty on January 6, 2014, to four counts of tampering with evidence, G. L. c. 268, § 13E; four counts of theft of a controlled substance (cocaine) from a dispensary, G.”
Commonwealth v. Cotto, 27 N.E.3d 1213 (Mass. 2015).
“2 On April 1, 2013, a State grand jury indicted Farak on four counts of tampering with evidence, G. L. c. 268, § 13E; four counts of theft of a controlled substance (cocaine) from a dispensary, G.”
Commonwealth v. Tejeda, 73 N.E.3d 290 (Mass. 2017).
“Here, the defendant’s conduct may have been prohibited by G. L. c. 268, § 13E, which criminalizes, among other things, the destruction of objects with the intent of interfering with criminal proceedings.”
Ablavsky v. United States Dep't of Educ. (In re Ablavsky), 504 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014).
“Ablavsky was convicted of the crime of tampering with an official record in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13E and was sentenced to eighteen months in the House of Correction with sixty-four days served and the balance suspended with conditions.”
Commonwealth v. Martinez (Mass. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 6× “See G. L. c. 268, § 13E (b). On appeal, he contends that the indictment charging him with that crime was 2 defective and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.”
Viger v. Yessayan (D. Mass. 2020).
“) (dismissing claim in part brought under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268 §13E), aff'd (Aug.”
Marc Aldana v. Commonwealth. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024).
“266, § 49, and evidence tampering, G. L. c. 268, § 13E. The jury indicated on the verdict slip that the 4 are: (1) the plaintiff "possessed or controlled," (2) "without lawful authority," (3) a component of a "destructive or incendiary device or substance," and (4) with the…”
Commonwealth v. Corey Buchannon. (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).
“[5] The second notice of violation also included alleged violations for "[p]ossession of Class D substance in a corrections facility" and tampering with evidence, G. L. c. 268, § 13E (b). These allegations were dropped at the hearing.”
Waters v. W. World Ins., 29 Mass. L. Rptr. 49 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2011).
“268, §13B; 5 and tampering with evidence, G.L.c. 268, §13E. 6 Fairly reading the complaint, Waters’ damages originated from, and therefore “arose out of,” those willful violations of penal statutes.”
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.