A woman’s report about two children’s disclosures grew into a seven-count felony case against their mother’s boyfriend.
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A welfare check at a central Las Vegas Valley apartment led police to allegations that a mother’s boyfriend had physically abused her young son and engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with her daughter over a period approaching two years.
The report that brought officers to the apartment began with an unnamed woman who said the children had described concerning behavior. What officers learned during and after that visit eventually led a grand jury to indict Rosario “Roy” Diraffaele, 38, in May. He faces seven felony counts, has pleaded not guilty and remains held on $100,000 bail. The case is scheduled for trial in November.
Authorities have not identified the woman who contacted police or explained whether she was a relative, neighbor, family friend or professional who knew the children. Public accounts also do not state the exact day of the welfare check or what the woman reported before officers arrived. The limited description shows only that the children’s disclosures were serious enough to prompt a response at the apartment in 2025. Once police spoke with the children, the inquiry expanded from an immediate safety check into an examination of conduct that investigators said began in July 2023 and continued through June 2025.
The boy, who was reported to be 9 years old, told investigators that Diraffaele used forced exercise as a form of discipline. Police said the child was made to perform wall squats and other exercises, then faced harsher punishment if he could not finish. The alleged punishments included cigarette burns, repeated strikes or punctures with a fork and shots from a pellet gun. The child also said Diraffaele told him not to speak about the abuse. That warning, if proven, could help explain why police did not become involved until another adult heard the children’s account and requested help.
A printer inside the home became the focus of one specific allegation. A police officer testified that Diraffaele believed the boy had drawn on it. “He disclosed one incident where Diraffaele believed that the boy had drawn on his printer,” the officer told the grand jury. “Diraffaele shot him with a pellet gun twice.” The testimony did not publicly reveal where the boy was struck, what injuries resulted or whether another person saw the shooting. It also remains unknown whether the printer or pellet gun was still at the apartment when police conducted the welfare check.
The first officers at such a scene can become important witnesses because they observe the home and the people inside before a long investigation begins. In this case, however, public reporting has not described what officers saw when they entered the apartment. It is not known whether the boy had visible injuries at that moment, whether the children appeared frightened or whether police found any object matching their accounts. Reports also do not say whether officers recorded the initial interviews on body-worn cameras or arranged later forensic interviews designed for children. Those details may be contained in records that have not been released.
The allegation involving the girl broadened the investigation beyond physical punishment. Diraffaele is accused of inappropriate sexual contact with her, resulting in two counts of lewdness with a child younger than 14. A separate count alleges open or gross lewdness in the presence of a child or vulnerable person. The reports do not describe the alleged contact or identify who was present during the conduct covered by the final count. Authorities have withheld the children’s names, and the public record does not reveal where they are living now or whether they remain together.
The indictment also includes four counts of child abuse, neglect or endangerment. The available accounts do not match each count to a particular object, injury or date. Prosecutors may be treating different alleged episodes as separate offenses, or some counts may cover continuing conduct over a period. The charging document and future court filings could provide more detail. Until then, it is not clear whether the cigarette burns, fork attacks and pellet-gun incidents each support separate counts or whether the state grouped some allegations together.
The role of the children’s mother is another unanswered part of the story. Reports identify Diraffaele as her boyfriend but do not say whether he lived with the family, how long the relationship lasted or whether he regularly cared for the children without another adult present. The mother has not been reported as charged. No public account says whether she observed injuries, knew about the forced exercises or heard the children complain. Her knowledge and observations could be relevant to the timeline, but the absence of public detail does not show what she told investigators.
The time between the welfare check and the May indictment likely included interviews and a review by prosecutors, though officials have not publicly described that work. Investigators in a case involving minors may compare separate statements, seek medical evaluations and identify adults who saw the children during the alleged period. They may also look for photographs, messages or records that support or contradict the timeline. The public reporting does not confirm which of those materials exist in this case. It does show that an officer presented at least part of the boy’s account to the grand jury.
A grand jury’s task is limited to deciding whether probable cause supports formal charges. The panel does not determine whether a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the process is led by prosecutors, jurors at a later trial may hear challenges that the grand jury did not. Diraffaele’s defense can question how the children were interviewed, whether their statements changed and whether any physical evidence supports the allegations. The defense can also offer other explanations for injuries or disputed events, subject to the rules of evidence.
The long charging period may make corroboration especially important. The alleged conduct began in July 2023 and ended in June 2025, according to reports. A child may not remember the date of every event, but surrounding details can help establish sequence. The printer incident provides one household marker. Medical visits, school attendance, family photographs or changes in residence could provide others if such records exist. Neither prosecutors nor defense lawyers have publicly laid out a complete timeline.
Diraffaele’s earlier criminal record may be addressed before trial. Reports say it reaches back to 2006 and includes arrests involving a stolen vehicle, false identification and grand larceny. He reportedly received a one-to-five-year prison sentence in 2012 for theft charges. Prosecutors have referred to him as a habitual criminal, which could matter if he is convicted and faces sentencing. It does not prove the allegations involving the children, and the trial judge will decide whether any part of that history may be presented to jurors.
The November trial date could change as lawyers review evidence and file motions. The court may be asked to decide whether the charges involving both children will be tried together, how prior statements can be used and what protections will apply if the minors testify. The parties could also reach a plea agreement, although none has been publicly announced. If the case proceeds to trial, the state must prove each count beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case remains rooted in the moment an outside adult reported what the children allegedly said. That report brought police to the apartment, created an opportunity for the children to speak with investigators and started the process that led to the indictment. Yet the identity of that adult, the exact content of the first report and the condition of the home when officers arrived all remain outside the public account.
Diraffaele remains in custody on $100,000 bail and is presumed innocent. The November trial is the next major scheduled stage in a case that began as a welfare check and now rests on seven felony allegations involving two children.
Author note: Last updated July 11, 2026.