569.080. Redemption by drainage, levee or improvement district — procedure. — 1. A person commits the offense of tampering in the first degree if he or she:
(1) For the purpose of causing a substantial interruption or impairment of a service rendered to the public by a utility or by an institution providing health or safety protection, damages or tampers with property or facilities of such a utility or institution, and thereby causes substantial interruption or impairment of service; or
(2) Knowingly receives, possesses, sells, or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof.
2. Upon a finding by the court that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, evidence of the following is admissible in any criminal prosecution of a person under subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of this section to prove the requisite knowledge that he or she:
(1) Received, possessed, sold, or operated an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat, or other motor-propelled vehicle unlawfully on a separate occasion; or
(2) Acquired the automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat, or other motor-propelled vehicle for a consideration which he or she knew was far below its reasonable value.
3. The offense of tampering in the first degree is a class D felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
136
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
State v. Johnson, 220 S.W.3d 377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Johnson, 220 S.W.3d 377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “015, and one count of tampering in the first degree, section 569.080. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to six concurrent terms of twenty-five years' imprisonment for the assault and armed criminal action convictions and one concurrent term of five years'…”
State v. Davidson, 521 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 7× “Section 569.080, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, states in relevant part: Tampering in the first degree.”
Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. 2002).
· cites it 4× “On December 15, 1998, he was charged in the city with tampering in the first degree in violation of section 569.080, alleging that the crime had occurred on October 19, 1998.”
State v. McGowan, 184 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “McGowan (Defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury verdict convicting him of tampering with a motor vehicle, first degree, in violation of Section 569.080 RSMO 2000. [1] The trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of ten years' imprisonment.”
State v. Holleran, 197 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Defendant, Matthew Holleran, appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of tampering in the *606 first degree, in violation of section 569.080 RSMo (2000), and resisting arrest, in violation of section 575.”
Winder v. State, 151 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Winder (“Movant”) was convicted of three counts of tampering in the first degree, in violation of § 569.080, RSMo 1994, and four counts of receiving stolen property, in violation of 570.”
State v. Walton, 703 S.W.2d 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Defendant was charged with tampering in the first degree in violation of § 569.080 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1984), which was passed in 1982.”
State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “*109 PER CURIAM: Defendant appeals from his jury conviction of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080, RSMo Supp.1984, and court-imposed sentence of one year’s imprisonment.”
Perkins-Bey v. State, 735 S.W.2d 170 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “-020 RSMo 1978, and tampering first degree, Section 569.080 RSMo 1978. We affirmed the convictions.”
State v. Kelley, 901 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “050, RSMo 1994, and first degree tampering, § 569.080, RSMo 1994, were not sufficiently established by the evidence to sustain the convictions in six counts.”
In Re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 2× “[3] See §§ 569.080(2), 569.090(1), 569.100(1), 569.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.080(2) — 7 cases
In Re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. 1985).
“[3] See §§ 569.080(2), 569.090(1), 569.100(1), 569.”
State v. Kelley, 901 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“050, RSMo 1994, and first degree tampering, § 569.080, RSMo 1994, were not sufficiently established by the evidence to sustain the convictions in six counts.”
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.