Grand jury testimony described forced exercise, cigarette burns, fork wounds and pellet-gun shots during nearly two years of alleged punishment.

LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A Las Vegas man has pleaded not guilty to seven felony charges accusing him of repeatedly abusing his girlfriend’s children, including allegations that he burned her 9-year-old son, stabbed him with a fork and shot him with a pellet gun.

Rosario “Roy” Diraffaele, 38, was indicted in May after police investigated a welfare check at an apartment in the central Las Vegas Valley. Authorities said the alleged conduct occurred between July 2023 and June 2025. The indictment includes 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. Diraffaele is being held on $100,000 bail, and his trial is scheduled for November.

Police testimony presented to the grand jury described a system of punishment that allegedly began with physical exercise and escalated when the boy could not complete it. The child said Diraffaele ordered him to perform wall squats and other exercises. If he stopped or failed, investigators said, Diraffaele allegedly responded by burning him with cigarettes, stabbing or jabbing him with a fork, or firing a pellet gun at him. The boy also said Diraffaele told him not to say anything about the treatment. The testimony portrayed the alleged violence as repeated discipline rather than a single confrontation, with the form of punishment changing according to what Diraffaele believed the child had done.

One allegation centered on marks found on a household printer. An officer told grand jurors that Diraffaele believed the boy had drawn on the machine. “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.” The public account of the testimony does not identify where the pellets struck the child, whether they broke his skin or whether he received medical treatment. It also does not describe the drawing, the model of the pellet gun or whether investigators recovered the weapon. The episode nevertheless gave the grand jury a specific example within the longer pattern alleged by police.

Authorities said the boy’s account included repeated burning and stabbing, but the public record remains limited. Reports do not state how many times each form of punishment allegedly occurred or identify the exact dates of individual incidents. They also do not describe the number, location or appearance of any scars or other injuries. No publicly available account says whether doctors examined the child, whether investigators photographed injuries or whether medical records supported a particular cause. Those questions may become important if the case reaches trial, where prosecutors must connect each criminal count to evidence that jurors can evaluate beyond the broad description of a two-year period.

The accusations involving the boy are only part of the indictment. Diraffaele is also accused of inappropriate sexual contact with the boy’s sister. Those allegations resulted in two counts of lewdness with a child younger than 14 and the count of open or gross lewdness in the presence of a child or vulnerable person. Reports have not provided a detailed description of the alleged acts, and the children have not been publicly identified. The lack of detail protects the minors’ privacy but leaves unanswered how the conduct involving the girl fits into the timeline described by police and whether the siblings witnessed or disclosed events involving one another.

The investigation began after a woman reported concerning behavior that the children had allegedly described to her. Police then went to the apartment for a welfare check. Authorities have not publicly identified the woman, explained her relationship to the family or said exactly when the children spoke with her. It is also unclear whether officers immediately removed the children from the home, whether the apartment was searched or whether other adults were present during the initial response. The available reporting shows that the welfare check developed into a broader investigation, but it does not provide the full sequence of interviews, evidence collection and decisions that led prosecutors to seek an indictment.

The children’s mother has not been publicly accused of a crime in the reports about the case. Diraffaele is described as her boyfriend, but the public accounts do not say whether he lived in the apartment throughout the alleged period, how often he supervised the children or what authority he had to punish them. The reports also do not say whether the mother saw any injuries, heard threats or received explanations for marks on the boy’s body. Those details could help establish access, opportunity and the household routine during the period listed in the indictment. They could also become areas of questioning for both prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Diraffaele’s indictment followed testimony before a grand jury, a body that decides whether prosecutors have shown probable cause to file criminal charges. That decision is not a finding of guilt. Grand jury proceedings are generally led by prosecutors, and the defense does not present a full trial case at that stage. Diraffaele’s not-guilty plea means the state must prove every element of the seven charges beyond a reasonable doubt. His lawyers will be able to challenge the children’s statements, question police witnesses and dispute any medical, photographic or physical evidence the prosecution seeks to introduce.

The nearly two-year charging period may create a complicated evidentiary task. Young witnesses may remember alleged events through objects, rooms or surrounding circumstances rather than exact dates. The printer allegation offers one such point of reference. The exercises, cigarettes, fork and pellet gun offer others. Prosecutors could try to use those details with records or testimony to build a sequence, while the defense could argue that broad time ranges make the allegations difficult to test. Reports do not say whether investigators obtained phone messages, photographs, school records or other material that might place Diraffaele and the children together at particular times.

Police and prosecutors may also have to explain how the separate allegations involving the two children relate to the seven counts. The state can argue that events in the same household provide context for one another, but jurors must still consider each count separately. Defense lawyers may ask the judge to limit evidence they believe could cause jurors to treat one accusation as proof of another. The court could also be asked to decide how the minors will testify and which of their earlier statements may be admitted. No major pretrial ruling has been publicly reported.

Diraffaele’s prior criminal history dates to at least 2006, according to reports, and includes arrests involving possession of a stolen vehicle, possession of false identification and grand larceny. He was reportedly sentenced in 2012 to one to five years in the Nevada Department of Corrections for theft charges. Prosecutors have described him as a habitual criminal. That history does not establish guilt in the current case, and a judge may restrict what jurors hear about it. It could become more important at sentencing if Diraffaele is convicted and prosecutors seek a penalty allowed for repeat offenders.

For now, the allegations remain claims that have not been tested before a trial jury. The public record identifies the children’s statements, the officer’s description of the printer incident, the seven charges and the broad period in which the conduct allegedly occurred. It does not include a complete police report, medical findings, a full transcript of the grand jury presentation or a detailed response from the defense. That leaves significant parts of the case unresolved as both sides prepare for court.

For now, Diraffaele remains jailed on $100,000 bail and is presumed innocent unless convicted. His next major publicly reported milestone is the trial scheduled for November, when prosecutors would be required to prove the allegations through admissible evidence and testimony.

Author note: Last updated July 11, 2026.