What were the 34 felony counts Donald Trump was convicted of and how are they defined under New York law?

1. What the 34 counts actually were — one label, 34 instances

All 34 counts in the indictment were the same statutory offense: falsifying business records in the first degree. The indictment charged Trump with 34 separate felony counts of that offense, each count tied to discrete entries or transactions that prosecutors say were falsified to conceal the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and related costs ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The factual core prosecutors emphasized — hush-money payments and bookkeeping

Prosecutors alleged the falsified entries were used to hide payments and reimbursements connected to the $420,000 outlay to Stormy Daniels and transaction-related costs; they presented the falsified business records as the vehicle for that concealment ^{[1] [2]}. Major news organizations report the jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts after a multi‑week trial ^{[5] [6]}.

3. How New York law defines the charge — misdemeanor upgraded to felony when tied to another crime

Under New York law, falsifying business records is ordinarily a Class A misdemeanor when done “with intent to defraud” (two‑year statute of limitations), but the statute becomes a felony—falsifying business records in the first degree—if the falsification is committed “with intent to commit, or to conceal, or to aid in the commission of, another crime” ^{[3] [4]}. The prosecution’s theory in this case was that the book entries were altered to conceal another crime, elevating each charged count to a felony ^[4].

4. Why there were 34 separate counts — prosecutorial strategy and statutes of limitations

Commentators and legal analysts noted prosecutors often break a scheme into multiple counts by tying each allegedly false entry to a separate count; one practical reason here was statute-of-limitations constraints—misdemeanor falsifying-business-records charges would have been time‑barred for some entries, but the felony theory (charging concealment of another crime) extends the limitations period and permitted pursuit of 34 felony counts instead of misdemeanor counts ^[3].

5. The punishment and post‑verdict developments reported

News accounts confirm the jury convicted Trump on all 34 felony counts ^{[5] [6]}. Reporting also describes subsequent legal maneuvers: defense appeals seeking dismissal and removal issues raised in federal courts, and decisions around sentencing and later appeals, including filings by Trump’s lawyers arguing the case was improperly charged ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Specific sentencing outcomes and appellate rulings are mentioned in the record but vary by report ^{[10] [7]}.

6. Competing perspectives and political context

Prosecutors presented the falsified records as part of a scheme to conceal unlawful activity tied to campaign‑period conduct; defense lawyers have described the charges as politically motivated and argued the case should never have reached a jury—filings and appeals framed the indictment as “manufactured felony charges” ^{[7] [11]}. Judicial and academic forums have also questioned whether carving one scheme into many counts was typical prosecutorial practice or an outlier tactic ^[3].

7. Limits of the available sources and what they do not say

Available sources in this packet identify the 34 counts as falsifying business records in the first degree and outline the statutory basis for elevating falsification to a felony, but they do not provide the full text of each count or the exact ledger entries charged; they also do not offer the complete appellate history or every legal ruling after conviction in detail ^{[12] [4]}. If you want the specific language of each count or the charging instrument itself, those documents are not included in the provided material and are therefore “not found in current reporting” here.

8. Bottom line for readers: legal label vs. underlying conduct

Factually, the conviction consists of 34 separate felony counts, all carrying the same statutory label—falsifying business records in the first degree—because prosecutors argued each alleged false entry was made to conceal another crime ^{[1] [4]}. The dispute over whether that legal framing was appropriate is central to ongoing appeals and political debate, with defense teams calling the prosecution overreach and prosecutors and jurors treating each entry as an independently chargeable felony act ^{[7] [5]}.