State v. Bolden

Summary

The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction for tampering with physical evidence because leaving the damaged SUV uncovered at the end of a driveway did not constitute concealment under the statute. The court treated concealment as requiring an actual reduction in the object's visibility or recognizability, distinct from the defendant's intent to avoid detection. The tampering conviction was therefore reversed, while the remaining conviction was left undisturbed.