A November trial is scheduled after grand jurors heard allegations involving forced exercise, burns, fork wounds and pellet-gun fire.
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A seven-count indictment has moved allegations of abuse against two Las Vegas children toward trial, placing the accounts of a young boy, his sister and an investigating police officer at the center of a felony case.
Rosario “Roy” Diraffaele, 38, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of child abuse, neglect or endangerment, two counts of lewdness with a child younger than 14 and one count of open or gross lewdness in the presence of a child or vulnerable person. He is being held on $100,000 bail. His trial is scheduled for November, when prosecutors would have to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The indictment returned in May represents a finding of probable cause, not guilt. A grand jury hears evidence selected and presented by prosecutors to decide whether formal charges should be filed. The defense generally does not use that proceeding to present its entire case or conduct the same cross-examination that would occur at trial. Diraffaele’s not-guilty plea now allows his lawyers to challenge the state’s evidence through motions, witness questioning and arguments before a judge and, if the case proceeds, a jury.
One officer told the grand jury that the 9-year-old boy described being punished through forced exercise. According to the testimony, Diraffaele made him perform wall squats and other physical tasks. When the boy could not complete them, he said Diraffaele burned him with cigarettes, stabbed or jabbed him with a fork, or shot him with a pellet gun. The child also accused Diraffaele of ordering him not to disclose the treatment. Prosecutors are likely to rely on that account, but the public reports do not show the full questions and answers presented to grand jurors.
The officer offered a more detailed description of one alleged pellet-gun incident. “He disclosed one incident where Diraffaele believed that the boy had drawn on his printer,” the officer said. “Diraffaele shot him with a pellet gun twice.” That statement gives prosecutors a claimed reason for the punishment and identifies a specific object in the home. It does not publicly establish when the incident occurred, where the child was struck or whether investigators found the gun. Those details may affect how strongly the episode can be tied to physical or documentary evidence.
Evidence of injury could become one of the major disputes before trial. The reports say the boy was repeatedly beaten, burned and shot, but they do not provide medical findings or photographs. They do not say whether a doctor found marks consistent with cigarette burns, fork wounds or pellet impacts. Prosecutors could use testimony from medical professionals or people who saw the boy during the alleged period. Defense lawyers could question whether an injury’s age or cause can be determined and whether another explanation fits the evidence. The court will decide which opinions meet the legal standards for admission.
The charges involving the boy cover alleged conduct between July 2023 and June 2025. A broad time range can be necessary when a child remembers repeated events but not exact calendar dates. It can also create challenges for a defense seeking to test where a defendant was on a particular day. Prosecutors may try to narrow the sequence through school, medical, housing or communication records. No such records have been publicly described, and the state has not released a count-by-count timeline showing which alleged act supports each child abuse charge.
The accusations involving the boy’s sister add another set of legal and factual questions. Diraffaele is accused of inappropriate sexual contact with her, leading to the two lewdness counts. The open or gross lewdness count alleges conduct in the presence of a child or vulnerable person, but public reports do not say who allegedly witnessed it. Prosecutors must establish the required elements of each offense without relying only on the seriousness of the other allegations. Jurors would be instructed to decide each count independently.
The defense may ask the judge to separate some charges or limit evidence involving one child from being used to support allegations involving the other. Prosecutors could argue that the events occurred in the same household and form part of a connected course of conduct. The outcome would depend on the indictment, the expected testimony and Nevada evidence rules. No public report says whether such a motion has been filed. The court may also need to decide whether earlier statements by the children can be presented in addition to any live testimony.
How investigators interviewed the children may receive close attention. The case began after a woman reported concerning behavior that the children allegedly disclosed to her, prompting police to conduct a welfare check at a central Las Vegas Valley apartment. Public accounts do not identify that woman or state what the children told her. They also do not say whether the first police conversations were recorded, whether trained child interviewers later participated or whether the siblings were questioned separately. Defense lawyers often examine those circumstances when testing the reliability of reported statements.
The prosecution could seek to show consistency across the children’s disclosures, the officer’s observations and any physical evidence. The defense could focus on differences, delays or missing corroboration. Neither approach has been fully presented in public. News reports summarize only portions of the grand jury material, and the complete police file has not been released through the coverage of the case. That means the evidence available to the lawyers may be broader than the details currently known outside court.
Bail is another part of the pending case rather than a punishment. Diraffaele remains held on $100,000 bail while awaiting further proceedings. A bail order can reflect the seriousness of the charges, a defendant’s history and concerns about appearance in court or community safety, but public reports do not describe the judge’s full reasoning. Detention before trial does not alter the presumption of innocence. Diraffaele can remain accused while still disputing every allegation.
His prior criminal history may become relevant only under limits set by the court. Reports say the record dates to 2006 and includes arrests involving possession of a stolen vehicle, possession of false identification and grand larceny. Diraffaele reportedly received a one-to-five-year Nevada prison sentence in 2012 for theft charges. Prosecutors have called him a habitual criminal, language that may signal a possible sentencing enhancement. Prior theft-related conduct does not prove child abuse or lewdness, and jurors may never hear all of it.
Before the November trial, both sides may exchange evidence, identify witnesses and litigate what the jury will be allowed to consider. The judge could hear arguments about medical testimony, child interviews, the joinder of charges and Diraffaele’s record. A trial date may also be postponed if the court grants more preparation time. No plea agreement has been publicly reported. If a trial begins, prosecutors will present their witnesses first, followed by the defense’s opportunity to cross-examine and offer evidence.
The state’s case currently rests in the public record on a concise but serious set of allegations: forced exercise, cigarette burns, fork attacks, pellet-gun shots and inappropriate sexual contact. The defense’s detailed response has not been reported beyond Diraffaele’s not-guilty plea. That imbalance reflects the stage of the case rather than a verdict. The trial process is designed to test the accusations under rules that did not apply in the same way during the grand jury presentation.
The next major milestone is the November trial setting, subject to any changes ordered after pretrial motions or negotiations. Diraffaele remains jailed, and the children’s identities remain protected.
Author note: Last updated July 11, 2026.