Opinion ID: 2806479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tampering with Public Records

Text: [¶14] Beckwith was also charged with two counts of tampering with public records. A person commits this crime when she “[k]nowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or 8 kept by the government.” 17-A M.R.S. § 456(1)(A). The evidence was sufficient to prove that Beckwith made entries in two governmental records or documents, namely, the database entries indicating the transcript order and the refund request, knowing that the entries were false, in an effort to obtain $2,750 from the State in the guise of a refund. Beckwith’s conduct falls within the plain language of section 456(1)(A). [¶15] This conclusion calls for us to reconsider a portion of our holding in State v. Spaulding, 1998 ME 29, 707 A.2d 378. There, Spaulding submitted an application with the Maine Department of Human Resources to be listed as a Certified Nursing Assistant. Id. ¶ 2. On the application, she falsely represented that she had never been convicted of a crime. Id. As a result, Spaulding was charged with and convicted of tampering with public records pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 456(1)(A) (1983).5 Spaulding, 1998 ME 29, ¶ 3, 707 A.2d 378. We reversed, holding in part that because the crime is labeled “tampering,” it applies only to “the alteration or change of an existing document.” Id. ¶ 7. Because Spaulding made a false entry when she created the document and “did not 5 The tampering with public records or information statute has not changed since that time. See 17-A M.R.S. § 456 (2014). 9 alter or change information on a document,” id., we held that she could not be found guilty of tampering with public records.6 Id. ¶ 13. [¶16] As the dissent in Spaulding pointed out, this holding did not fully recognize the plain and unambiguous language in section 456(1)(A) that criminalizes making “a false entry” in a governmental record or document, as well as falsely altering those materials. Id. ¶¶ 15, 19 (Lipez, J., dissenting). Here, the evidence demonstrated that Beckwith knowingly made false entries in State transcript records even though she did not alter or change the contents of existing records. Despite our holding in Spaulding, Beckwith’s proven conduct falls squarely within the definition of the crime of tampering with public records as established by the Legislature, and the court was entitled to find her guilty of both counts of that crime. Consistent with the plain language of section 456(1)(A), see State v. Jones, 2012 ME 88, ¶ 6, 46 A.3d 1125, we therefore overrule that aspect of the holding in Spaulding and now hold that section 456(1)(A) reaches the knowing entry of false information in a governmental record or document.7 6 We noted that Spaulding’s conduct may have constituted the separate crime of unsworn falsification. See 17-A M.R.S. § 453 (1983). State v. Spaulding, 1998 ME 29, ¶ 13, 707 A.2d 378. 7 Another aspect of the holding in Spaulding is that section 456 applies only “to documents already received by the government, not documents that will be received by the government.” Id. ¶ 9. Because Beckwith made false entries in documents that were already in the State’s possession, this case does not give us occasion to examine that part of the Spaulding analysis. 10 The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Marvin H. Glazier, Esq., Vafiades, Brountas & Kominsky, LLP, Bangor, for appellant Danielle A. Beckwith Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine At oral argument: Kaylee J. Folster, Esq., Vafiades, Brountas & Kominsky, LLP, Bangor, for appellant Danielle A. Beckwith Leanne Robbin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State of Maine Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2013-2805 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY