Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (2026)
Tampering with or fabricating evidence
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is unlawful for any person, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, to:
- (1) Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding; or
- (2) Make, present, or use any record, document or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
- (b) A violation of this section is a Class C felony.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013). “§ 39-13-202 (2010) and tampering with evidence in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (2010). Mr. Hawkins’s trial took place in the Circuit Court for Madison County from March 29 to March 31, 2010.”
State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (emphasis added).”
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010). “For something to be destroyed within the context of T.C.A. § 39-16-503, its evidentiary value must be ruined.”
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “nullity because the offense of “fabricating evidence” does not exist under Tennessee law; (3) whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury permitted a non-unanimous verdict in violation of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; (4) whether the trial court correctly…”
State v. Logan, 973 S.W.2d 279 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “1994), in which this court held that mere abandonment of evidence does not constitute evidence tampering within the meaning of T.C.A. § 39-16-503. Under T.C.A. § 39-16-503, the offense of tampering with evidence is defined as follows: (a) It is unlawful for any person,' knowing…”
State v. Patton, 898 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503. While there are no Tennessee cases directly on point, the defendant cites several well-reasoned decisions of the Florida Courts of Appeal which directly address this issue.”
State of Tennessee v. Emmett Lejuan Harvell & Bardell Nelson Joseph, A/K/A Shawn Anglin, A/K/A Billontae Smontez Adams, 415 S.W.3d 853 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See T.C.A. § 39-16-503(a)(l) (2008). With respect to the offense that was facilitated in this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court recently elucidated the elements necessary to establish evidence tampering.”
Vanderbilt Univ. v. Scholastic, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 3d 830 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). “50 at 11), the court actually only held that "the term 'pending' in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-503 means 'impending.' " Smith , 436 S.”
State v. Abernathy, 159 S.W.3d 601 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503. 2 . Unfortunately for the Defendant, the water in the toilet was "discolored” by urine.”
State of Tennessee v. John Matthew Cabe, 579 S.W.3d 343 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “T.C.A. § 39-16-503. -7- The factual situation illustrated by this case presents a conundrum for pawnbrokers.”
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Singer (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-503 , 39-17-418, 39-17-425.”
State of Tennessee v. Mark Christopher Beasley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (a)(1). The statute requires the State to prove “timing, action, and intent” beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a) — 10 cases
State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (emphasis added).”
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010). “For something to be destroyed within the context of T.C.A. § 39-16-503, its evidentiary value must be ruined.”
State of Tennessee v. Charles Hardy, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Terry Butler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Alvina Tinisha Brown (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(1) — 32 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013). “§ 39-13-202 (2010) and tampering with evidence in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (2010). Mr. Hawkins’s trial took place in the Circuit Court for Madison County from March 29 to March 31, 2010.”
State of Tennessee v. Edythe Christie (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Torijon Coplin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021).
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin L. Bradford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Tyson Reed King (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Forbes, 918 S.W.2d 431 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “nullity because the offense of “fabricating evidence” does not exist under Tennessee law; (3) whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury permitted a non-unanimous verdict in violation of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; (4) whether the trial court correctly…”
State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith, 436 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2014). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503 (emphasis added).”
State of Tennessee v. Terry Butler (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Glover P. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010). “For something to be destroyed within the context of T.C.A. § 39-16-503, its evidentiary value must be ruined.”
State of Tennessee v. Emmett Lejuan Harvell & Bardell Nelson Joseph, A/K/A Shawn Anglin, A/K/A Billontae Smontez Adams, 415 S.W.3d 853 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See T.C.A. § 39-16-503(a)(l) (2008). With respect to the offense that was facilitated in this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court recently elucidated the elements necessary to establish evidence tampering.”
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.