Sec. 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding; or
(2) makes, presents, or uses 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) This section shall not apply if the record, document, or thing concealed is privileged or is the work product of the parties to the investigation or official proceeding.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is a felony of the third degree, unless the thing altered, destroyed, or concealed is a human corpse, in which case the offense is a felony of the second degree. An offense under Subsection (d)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) or (d)(1) that the record, document, or thing was visual material prohibited under Section 43.261 that was destroyed as described by Subsection (f)(3) of that section.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowing that an offense has been committed, alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding related to the offense; or
(2) observes a human corpse under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed, knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement agency is not aware of the existence of or location of the corpse, and fails to report the existence of and location of the corpse to a law enforcement agency.
(e) In this section, "human corpse" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.08.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1284, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 287 (H.B. 872), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1322 (S.B. 407), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 915 (H.B. 3607), Sec. 16.004, eff. September 1, 2021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
411
cases (
78 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 20× “23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [1] bars the admissibility of a confession if the interrogating officer fabricates documentary evidence in violation of Texas Penal Code section 37.09 [2] and uses it to persuade a suspect to confess.”
Rabb, Richard Lee, 434 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (a)(1) (West 2011).”
Karl Dean Stahmann v. State, 548 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, with the sentence suspended and community supervision imposed for ten years. Stahmann raises seventeen issues on appeal, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying…”
Rotenberry v. State, 245 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (a)(1) (Vernon 2003).”
State v. Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.09 (a)(1) (West 2010); see also Williams v.”
Thornton, Gregory, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(1). In describing the elements of tampering with evidence in this case, the trial court instructed the jury, as follows: [I]f you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that .”
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “10 (Tampering with Governmental Record); TEX. PENAL CODE § 37.09 (Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence); see generally De La Paz v.”
Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(a)(1) (Vernon 2003).”
Brosky v. State, 915 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09 (Vernon 1994).”
Carnley v. State, 366 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “[1] In two issues, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion for directed verdict and that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction.”
Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (c), (d)(1) (West 2003), 1 § 38.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(A)(1) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a) — 29 cases
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(1) — 109 cases
Rabb, Richard Lee, 434 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
“See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (a)(1) (West 2011).”
Karl Dean Stahmann v. State, 548 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App. 2018).
“He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, with the sentence suspended and community supervision imposed for ten years. Stahmann raises seventeen issues on appeal, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying…”
Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
“TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(a)(1) (Vernon 2003).”
Rotenberry v. State, 245 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. App. 2007).
“See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09 (a)(1) (Vernon 2003).”
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(2) — 11 cases
Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
“23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [1] bars the admissibility of a confession if the interrogating officer fabricates documentary evidence in violation of Texas Penal Code section 37.09 [2] and uses it to persuade a suspect to confess.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(l) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(b) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(c) — 21 cases
Thornton, Gregory, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
“” Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(1). In describing the elements of tampering with evidence in this case, the trial court instructed the jury, as follows: [I]f you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that .”
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(d) — 5 cases
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(d)(1) — 37 cases
Thornton, Gregory, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
“” Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(1). In describing the elements of tampering with evidence in this case, the trial court instructed the jury, as follows: [I]f you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that .”
Karl Dean Stahmann v. State, 548 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App. 2018).
“He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, with the sentence suspended and community supervision imposed for ten years. Stahmann raises seventeen issues on appeal, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying…”
— Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(d)(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.