Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.100 (2026)

Tampering with physical evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  575.100.  Tampering with physical evidence — penalties. — 1.  A person commits the offense of tampering with physical evidence if he or she:

  (1)  Alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation; or

  (2)  Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false with the purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in any official proceeding or investigation.

  2.  The offense of tampering with physical evidence is a class A misdemeanor, unless the person impairs or obstructs the prosecution or defense of a felony, in which case tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

­­--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: State of Missouri v. Markus Michael A. Patterson, 489 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
State of Missouri v. Markus Michael A. Patterson, 489 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “§ 575.100, RSMo Cumulative Supplement (2014).”
State v. Smith, 157 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “2 provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 575.100, RSMo, and with the approval of the affected court, any law enforcement officer who seizes hazardous materials as evidence related to a criminal investigation may collect representative samples of such hazardous…”
State v. Puckett, 146 S.W.3d 19 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “Subsection 2 of the statute provides 3 : Notwithstanding the provisions of section 575.100, RSMo, and with the approval of the affected court, any law enforcement officer who seizes hazardous materials as evidence related to a criminal investigation may collect representative…”
In re Mintz, 317 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 3× “Knoll alleged that the respondent violated Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.100 , tampering with physical evidence.”
State v. Kelsall, 545 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “202, and one count of tampering with physical evidence, see section 575.100. 1 The case went to trial on September 8, 2016, and a jury found Defendant guilty of the charged offenses.”
Marmaduke v. CBL & Assocs. Mgmt., Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “270 RSMo (2017) (setting forth the elements of tampering with a witness or a victim) with § 575.100 RSMo (2017) (setting forth the elements of tampering with physical evidence); see also Mo.”
State v. Ford, 906 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 9× “Ford appeals from her conviction, after jury trial, of the class D felony of tampering -with physical evidence, section 575.100, RSMo 1994, 1 for which she was sentenced to one year imprisonment.”
Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 2× “ROBERTSON, C.J., HOLSTEIN, THOMAS, PRICE and LIMBAUGH, JJ.”
State v. Henderson, 551 S.W.3d 593 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “015, and tampering with physical evidence, section 575.100, and sentences as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms of life, twenty-five years, and 3 years imprisonment, respectively.”
State v. McElvain, 228 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “2, provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 575.100, RSMo, and with the approval of the affected court, any law enforcement officer who seizes hazardous materials as evidence related to a criminal investigation may collect representative samples of such hazardous…”
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “13 (West 1985); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 575.100 (Vernon 1995); Mont.”
State v. Molasky, 765 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. 1989). · cites it 2× “004, RSMo 1978 1 , and tampering with physical evidence, § 575.100, RSMo 1978. He was sentenced to 15 years for attempted murder and one year for tampering with physical evidence.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.100(1) — 1 case
State v. Eggemeyer, 9 S.W.3d 640 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
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.