What is tampering with a governmental record under Texas law?
Texas Penal Code § 37.10 makes it a crime to knowingly falsify, make, use, possess, conceal, or destroy a governmental record. It is not one act but a cluster of six. The grade runs from a Class A misdemeanor to a second-degree felony, depending on the record and the actor's intent.
Tampering with a governmental record is defined by Texas Penal Code § 37.10, which sits in Chapter 37 alongside perjury and the other "falsification" offenses. It is not one act but a cluster of six. A person commits the offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; (3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record; (4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully; (5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or (6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or blank form knowing it was obtained unlawfully. The Court of Appeals in Austin laid out that same statutory list when it analyzed the offense in City of Bertram v. Reinhardt, No. 03-14-00296-CV (Tex. App.—Austin 2015).
What makes this charge dangerous is its reach. The conduct that triggers it can look small — a checked box on a state form, a date written on a permit, a name on an inspection sticker — but the statute treats the integrity of the document as the harm. Because the offense is built around documents the government relies on, prosecutors in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County use § 37.10 across a wide range of fact patterns, from forged temporary tags to falsified government time sheets to altered court paperwork.
What counts as a "governmental record"?
Almost everything. Under § 37.01(2), a "governmental record" is anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information — plus a long list of issued documents. The breadth of the definition is the single most important thing to understand about this charge.
Almost everything. The breadth of the definition is the single most important thing to understand about this charge. Under Texas Penal Code § 37.01(2), a "governmental record" is anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record. The Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed exactly that wording in Liverman v. State, 470 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), noting that "[a] governmental record includes 'anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record.'"
The definition then lists specific categories: anything required by law to be kept by others for the government's information; a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government; a standard proof of motor-vehicle liability insurance form; an official ballot or other election record; and more. The categories matter because they drive the punishment level. But the catch-all first clause is so wide that Texas courts have applied it to ordinary items. In Baumgart v. State, No. 01-14-00320-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), the court treated a traffic ticket written from a law-enforcement ticket book as a governmental record, because it was a thing "received by, or kept by government for information."
Information-gain point: the practical consequence is that a defense built on "that wasn't an official record" rarely works on the catch-all clause. The stronger fights are usually about whether the document was actually false, whether the accused had the required mental state, and whether the State can prove intent to defraud or harm. Knowing which clause the State is relying on tells you where the real argument is.
What must the State prove?
The elements vary by subsection, but every § 37.10 prosecution shares a backbone the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: a governmental record, a false entry or alteration (or knowing use of a false record), the required mental state, and a connection to the record's verity.
The elements vary by subsection, but every § 37.10 prosecution shares a backbone the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Using the most common charging theory — a knowing false entry or false alteration under § 37.10(a)(1) — the elements break down like this:
- A governmental record
- The item at issue must meet the § 37.01(2) definition. This is an element, not a formality; the indictment typically identifies the specific record (a title, a permit, a court filing).
- A false entry or false alteration
- There must be an actual falsity — a statement, mark, or change that is untrue. A truthful entry, even an unauthorized one, is not a false entry.
- The "knowingly" mental state
- The accused must have acted knowingly as defined by Penal Code § 6.03. Mistake, clerical error, or a good-faith belief the entry was correct undercuts this element.
- Connection to the record's verity
- The false entry must bear on the record itself. This element opens the statutory "no-effect" defense discussed below.
For the "make, present, or use" theories under § 37.10(a)(2) and (a)(5), the State must prove the accused acted with knowledge of the document's falsity. The Texarkana Court of Appeals applied that standard in a § 37.10(a)(5) case in Sanders v. State, 461 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015), describing the offense as committed when a person "makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity." The mental-state element is where many cases are won or lost, because the State usually has to prove what someone knew from circumstantial evidence.
Penalties & the grade ladder
There is no single answer — § 37.10 has a layered grade ladder. The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor, but the level climbs based on the type of record and whether the State proves intent to defraud or harm, all the way to a second-degree felony.
There is no single answer — § 37.10 has a layered grade ladder. The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor, but the level climbs based on (a) the type of record and (b) whether the State proves intent to defraud or harm another. The Court of Criminal Appeals set out the entire ladder in Kirkpatrick v. State, No. PD-0873-07 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), explaining that subsections (c) and (d) "state what punishment ranges apply to different kinds of governmental records." The table below tracks that holding.
| Record / subsection | Base grade | With intent to defraud or harm | Confinement / fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| General record — § 37.10(c)(1) | Class A misdemeanor | State jail felony | Class A: up to 1 year jail + up to $4,000. State jail: 180 days–2 years + up to $10,000 |
| License, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, school record — § 37.10(c)(2) | Third-degree felony | Second-degree felony | 3rd degree: 2–10 years + up to $10,000. 2nd degree: 2–20 years + up to $10,000 |
| Record used to establish residency to enroll a student — § 37.10(c)(3) | Class C misdemeanor | (as listed) | Fine only, up to $500 |
| Contingent-fee appraisal filed with an appraisal review board — § 37.10(c)(4) | Class B misdemeanor | (as listed) | Up to 180 days jail + up to $2,000 |
| Motor-vehicle insurance form — § 37.10(d) | Varies by act | Varies by act | Class C up to state jail felony, depending on which (a)(1)–(6) act applies |
The Kirkpatrick opinion stated the (c)(1) and (c)(2) tiers plainly: the general category is "a class A misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to harm or defraud another, then a state-jail felony," and the license/title category is "a third-degree felony unless the actor's intent is to harm or defraud another, then a second-degree felony." The Court of Criminal Appeals restated the (c)(2) elevation in Alfaro-Jimenez v. State, 577 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019), quoting that an offense under the section "is a felony of the third degree . . . unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree."
How "intent to defraud or harm" changes the case
It is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, or between a third-degree and a second-degree felony. Intent to defraud or harm is an aggravating element the State must allege and prove separately and beyond a reasonable doubt — and it is the element that draws the most fire from the defense.
It is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, or between a third-degree and a second-degree felony. That is why this element draws the most fire from the defense. Intent to defraud or harm is not part of the base offense; it is an aggravating element the State must allege and prove separately and beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Liverman described the elevation directly: tampering "committed 'with intent to defraud or harm another' . . . is a state-jail felony, at least absent other special circumstances outlined in § 37.10."
Because intent lives in the defendant's head, the State almost always proves it circumstantially — from the timing of an alteration, who benefited, whether there was concealment, and what the accused said. That gives the defense real room to work. A genuine clerical mistake, an honest dispute about what a form required, or a change that benefited no one can all defeat the intent element while leaving, at most, a lower-grade offense. In our experience defending these cases across DFW, narrowing the case down to the base grade — knocking out the "intent to defraud or harm" aggravator — is frequently the single most valuable result short of dismissal, because it can move a client from felony exposure to a misdemeanor.
How prosecutors build a § 37.10 case
Tampering cases are document cases. The State's file is usually built from the record itself, the custodian who can authenticate it, and a paper or digital trail — increasingly metadata and audit logs — showing who created or changed it.
Tampering cases are document cases. The State's file is usually built from the record itself, the custodian who can authenticate it, and a paper or digital trail showing who created or changed it. Expect the prosecution to rely on:
- The record custodian. A government employee testifies that the document is what the agency keeps and explains what an accurate entry should look like.
- Metadata and audit logs. Electronic filings, DMV title systems, and agency databases log timestamps, user IDs, and edits. This is increasingly the heart of a tampering case.
- Comparison documents. The "true" version of a title, permit, or transcript is placed next to the altered one to show the falsity.
- Statements and benefit evidence. Anything the accused said, plus proof of who gained from the change, to argue intent to defraud or harm.
The prosecution does not have to prove the false record actually fooled anyone or changed an outcome. Baumgart makes that explicit: the State "only had to demonstrate that the false information could have an effect on the government's purpose," and the fact that the record "was never processed" did not matter. Understanding that standard early tells the defense which battles are winnable and which are not.
Local DFW practice
Where a § 37.10 case is heard depends on its grade: misdemeanor-level tampering runs through the county courts at law, while felony-level tampering (any (c)(2) license/title case, or a (c)(1) case charged with intent to defraud or harm) goes to the district courts.
Where a § 37.10 case is heard depends on its grade. Misdemeanor-level tampering (the (c)(1) base offense, the (c)(3) residency record, the (c)(4) appraisal) is handled in the county courts at law; felony-level tampering (any (c)(2) license/title case, or a (c)(1) case charged with intent to defraud or harm) goes to the district courts. We defend these cases from our Frisco office across the DFW region:
- Collin County. Felony cases are heard at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building) in McKinney; misdemeanors run through the county courts at law in the same complex. Many of our clients' matters arise in Frisco, Plano, and McKinney.
- Dallas County. Felony tampering is filed at the Frank Crowley Courts Building; the county criminal courts handle the misdemeanor grades.
- Denton County. Cases are heard at the Denton County Courts Building, with felony and misdemeanor dockets separated by grade.
- Tarrant County. Felony matters run through the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth; misdemeanors go to the county criminal courts.
The firm keeps one office — 5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101, Frisco, TX 75034 — and appears in the surrounding counties from there. The grade of the charge is the first thing we confirm, because it determines the court, the bond posture, and whether the case is indicted by a grand jury or filed by information.
Collateral consequences & record clearing
Beyond jail and fines, a § 37.10 conviction is a crime of dishonesty: it can trigger professional-license discipline, surface on employment background checks, and complicate immigration. How the case ends controls whether the record can later be cleared.
Beyond jail and fines, a § 37.10 conviction carries consequences that often outlast the sentence. Because the offense is a crime of dishonesty, it can be especially damaging to people whose jobs depend on trust and licensure:
- Professional licenses. A falsification conviction can trigger discipline for nurses, teachers, real-estate and insurance licensees, CDL holders, and others. Educators in particular face SBEC review exposure.
- Employment. A crime involving dishonesty shows up on background checks and is treated as directly relevant by many employers.
- Immigration. A tampering conviction charged with intent to defraud can be analyzed as a crime involving moral turpitude, with serious immigration consequences. Non-citizens should get advice before any plea.
- Firearms. A felony conviction (any (c)(2) case, or a (c)(1) case elevated by intent) carries the firearm disabilities that attach to felonies under Penal Code § 46.04 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Record clearing. How the case ends controls whether the record can later be cleared. A dismissal or acquittal can support an expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55; some non-conviction outcomes qualify for an order of nondisclosure. A final conviction generally cannot be expunged. That is why the disposition strategy — fighting toward an outcome that preserves eligibility — matters from the first setting, not the last.
The right time to engage counsel is at the first sign of a tampering referral — before any statement to investigators, before the charging decision, and before metadata, audit logs, and witness memories of an ordinary form entry fade. Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London handle these cases personally, from the investigation stage through plea or trial, with collateral-consequence analysis built into every strategic decision. Free initial consultations are available; contact the firm at (972) 370-5060 or info@landllawgroup.com to schedule.
