Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tampering and Second-Degree Burglary Counts

Text: Storey was convicted of tampering and second-degree burglary because he returned to Frey's apartment and altered by cleaning up the scene of the crime physical evidence with the purpose to impair its availability in an official police investigation. Storey contends the trial court should have dismissed both counts because he reentered Frey's apartment before the police investigation started. He also contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for dismissal and object to the instructions on tampering and burglary. A person unlawfully tampers if he or she [a]lters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity, legibility or availability in any official proceeding or investigation;... § 575.100.1 RSMo 1986. Storey wiped down Frey's apartment, cleaned under her fingernails, and collected and discarded evidenceall within the plain language of the statute. Nonetheless, Storey invokes State v. Bulloch, 826 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Mo.App.1992), arguing that tampering cannot occur until an official proceeding or investigation begins. Bulloch was charged with impairing an official proceeding and the court of appeals (invoking construction of official proceeding from a different statute) ruled that one cannot impair an official proceeding until it begins. Id. Storey, conversely, was charged with impairing an investigation. Bulloch says nothing about impairing an investigation, and the statute contains no requirement that an investigation begin before one can impair it. See § 575.100.1 RSMo 1986. Thus, the trial court properly permitted trial of the tampering and second-degree burglary counts. Since there was no reason to dismiss these counts, nor any basis to object to the instructions, counsel was not ineffective.