I'm still confused (Trump trial).

[Ms. Toad]

72. He was convicted of violating a new york criminal law -

He falsified business records (a crime in New York). Normally that crime is a misdemeanor, but it is elevated to a felony if not only were the business records falsified, but his intent in doing so was not just to falsify the records - but also included an intent to do so for the purpose of commititing another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

That other crime (which he intended to commit or conceal) can be either another NY crime, or a federal crime. (Prosecution argued for a broader meaning which would might have included civil offenses which are unlawful but not criminal - but the judge rejected that broader meaning.)

To use the analogy given above (with modifications to correct the law): Trespassing is (1) entering the property of another (2) without the consent of the owner (3) with the intent to stay there. Burglary is (1) tresspassing (2) with the intent to commit a felony therein (and a couple of other elements not relevant here). That felony doesn't necessarily have to be a state felony - it could be a federal felony. So, completing the analogy, the felony Trump was convicted of was (1) falsification of business records (2) with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

The prosecution give the jury three potential "other" crimes to consider - one of which was violating the Federal Election Campaign Act - a federal crime, not a state one.

So - even if the jury decided that his purpose in falsifying the business records was to commit or conceal violations of the Federal Election Campaign act - it didn't convict him ot it (and he did not necessarily even have to have committed it - it just has to be part of what he intended when he committed the misdemeanor of falsifying the records). Or the intended crime could have been one of the other crimes (different falsification of records, or tax law violations) - and the jury didn't all have to agree which "other" crime he intended - as long as each juror determined that he was falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

Note: this is likely to be a ground for appeal - Trump's attorneys will likely argue that Judge Merchan erred by permitting the jury to consider federal crimes as the "other" crime which took it from a misdemeanor to a felony.