What criminal charges does Donald J. Trump face in New York (2023) and what are the key counts?
Executive summary
The New York case opened in March 2023 when a Manhattan grand jury returned an indictment charging Donald J. Trump with thirty‑four felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, tied to payments made in 2016 to adult‑film actress Stormy Daniels that prosecutors say were mischaracterized in company records [1] [2]. The counts allege the records were falsified to conceal another crime—an element prosecutors say elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanors into felonies—while Trump’s lawyers have disputed the theory and framed the probe as political [3] [4].
1. The indictment: thirty‑four counts of falsifying business records in the first degree
The core of the March 30, 2023 indictment is that Trump falsified or caused others to falsify business records—34 discrete counts under New York Penal Law §175.10—by recording payments related to the Stormy Daniels matter as legal or business expenses, rather than truthful descriptions, according to the Manhattan grand jury filing and reporting [1] [2]. The indictment was filed under seal then unsealed at Trump’s arraignment in April 2023 after he surrendered in Manhattan [1] [2].
2. The legal theory: how misdemeanors became felonies
Under New York law, falsifying business records can be a misdemeanor, but prosecutors charged first‑degree falsifying business records—felonies—by alleging the falsifications were done with intent to conceal another crime, a standard the Manhattan DA’s office argued jurors must find to convict on the elevated counts [3] [1]. Reporting explains that prosecutors presented evidence to the grand jury aiming to show that the recording of reimbursements and descriptions of payments were part of a scheme to hide the true nature and purpose of the funds [5] [6].
3. Timeline and procedural posture in 2023
The grand jury voted to indict on March 30, 2023, the indictment was filed that day, and Trump surrendered and was arraigned in early April 2023—events documented in contemporaneous reporting and later case summaries [1] [2]. The matter was the first criminal indictment brought against a former U.S. president, a fact noted across multiple news trackers and organizational summaries of Trump’s legal exposure [3] [6].
4. Prosecution’s evidence and theory as reported
Manhattan prosecutors focused on Michael Cohen’s payment to Daniels and subsequent reimbursements routed through Trump’s business entities and legal expense accounts, presenting testimony and documents they said showed purposeful misclassification of expense entries; prosecutors argued the misstatements were part of a cover‑up elevating the conduct to felony level [6] [5]. Public reporting also notes that earlier internal discussions among prosecutors explored different theories—such as extortion or money‑laundering—but that the office proceeded on falsifying business records brought before the grand jury [1].
5. Defense posture and political context
Trump’s legal team consistently denied wrongdoing, argued the indictment was politically motivated, and sought to shift venue or challenge the process; Trump and spokespeople labeled the investigation “weaponization,” an argument publicized by his lawyers and campaigns [1] [3]. Coverage of the case also documents defense efforts to contest the legal theory and to put prosecution witnesses and motives under scrutiny [7] [5].
6. Penalties, significance, and limits of available reporting
First‑degree falsifying business records in New York is a felony that, if convicted, carries potential prison exposure and other consequences under state law; news summaries and trackers from 2023–2024 emphasize both the symbolic historic nature of charging a former president and the relatively narrow statutory basis of the New York counts compared with other federal and state matters surrounding Trump [3] [6] [8]. The present summary relies on reporting and public filings describing the 2023 indictment; it does not assert outcomes beyond those documented in the supplied sources and does not evaluate evidence credibility beyond how prosecutors and defense framed it in the record [1] [2].