[Editor’s note: Readers are warned that this story includes descriptions of alleged indecent assault and battery.]

Jurors in Framingham District Court on Wednesday heard the opening statements and testimony from the commonwealth’s first two witnesses in the alleged indecent assault and witness intimidation case against Hillers Pizza owner Petros “Peter” Sismanis.

Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Pavan Nagavelli began his remarks to the jury by laying out what the commonwealth argued are the facts of the case. Nagavelli described the evening of Jan. 12, 2023, as a day “like any other” for the accuser, who worked for Sismanis. 

Hours into the accuser’s shift that night, Nagavelli said the defendant brought the accuser down into the basement storage area of 77 West Main Street, where — out of view of security cameras — the “55-year-old man took advantage and indecently assaulted a young girl.”

The state and the accuser allege that Sismanis grabbed her around the waist, pulled her to him and kissed her on the mouth without consent. She was 16 at the time of the alleged assault.

The witness intimidation charges against Sismanis, Nagavelli explained, came into play when the accuser’s mother arrived to pick her up before the end of her shift. 

“Mr. Sismanis stopped them from leaving that parking lot,” Nagavelli claimed. In his opening statement, he noted that the defendant moved in front of the vehicle multiple times and allegedly pleaded and begged with the accuser and her mother to make a deal instead of going to the police.

“At the end of this case, you will have all the proof you need,” Nagavelli said of the charges.

Sismanis’ lawyer, Joseph Cataldo, did not refute the interaction between Sismanis and the accuser in his opening remarks. However, he provided an alternate framework for jurors to consider.

“Regret does not equal retroactive lack of consent,” said Cataldo. “What you will see is just that.”

In his remarks, Cataldo argued that it was the accuser who initiated the trip down to the basement, that she made a clear glance to a security camera just outside the Hillers Pizza supply room, and that she never explicitly refused Sismanis’ advances.

“The evidence will be that she did not say no, she did not push away,” the defense attorney said. “She didn’t even step back, turn her head … nothing.”

Cataldo argued as well that Sismanis did not threaten to harm or break the accuser or her mother’s property. Furthermore, he noted that she was of the age of consent in Massachusetts at the time.

Concluding his opening statement, Cataldo called the intimidation charges against his client “a far overreach” by the commonwealth.

“The law just does not apply to these facts,” he said.

Accuser details incident

At the start of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, Nagavelli brought the accuser to the stand. In over two hours of examination, she detailed her current living and financial situation, as well as the sequence of events that occurred on Jan. 12, 2023.

The accuser echoed much of what Nagavelli had laid out in his opening statement, adding in additional details when asked. She provided information as to the inciting event that led her and Sismanis to travel down to the basement together.

Working a closing shift, the accuser — who had been working at Hillers Pizza for over a year at the time of the incident — frequently was tasked with stocking the restaurant at the end of the night. Those stocking materials were kept in the basement, which she did not have access to.

“I said, ‘I wish somebody would show me where the basement was,’ ” she recalled. She alleged it was Sismanis who suggested they go down to see the supply closet at around 7:15 p.m. that night.

Nagavelli made a point to have the accuser affirm that Sismanis did not show her where the key to the supply closet was stored.

The accuser provided additional detail of the alleged assault, noting that Sismanis had been sitting down when she “peeked her head” into the closet. It was when she turned around that he grabbed her and kissed her.

Nagavelli had the accuser confirm she had not given verbal consent for neither the kiss nor him grabbing her waist.

Following the kiss, the accuser claimed that “he told me I couldn’t tell anybody.”

The two went back up in the elevator to the lobby of 77 West Main Street, where Sismanis allegedly directed the accuser to return to the restaurant through the front doors while he went through the rear entrance.

“We left together so I don’t know why we would return separately,” she remarked.

The accuser then said she became distressed and went to the bathroom after handling a few more customers, which is when she called her mother. Her mother, who works at a hospital an hour away from Hopkinton, agreed to come get her.

Accuser’s mother discusses arrival

The commonwealth brought the accuser’s mother to the stand to testify on Wednesday as well. Judge Matthew McGrath noted to jurors that she was a “first complaint witness,” a party that a sexual assault victim has told of the alleged assault. Only one of these witnesses is allowed in a sexual assault trial.

“You may not consider this testimony as evidence the assault occurred,” McGrath said.

The accuser’s mother detailed her arrival to Hillers Pizza, which occurred around 9 p.m. She described retrieving her daughter, exchanging words with Sismanis and attempting to leave. Both the accuser and her mother stated at this point, Sismanis repeatedly attempted to block their vehicle from leaving the parking lot.

As well, the witness confirmed earlier testimony regarding Sismanis’ pleas as he blocked their vehicle from leaving. She claimed he said things such as, “Just kill me … hit me with your car,” and, “What can we do to fix this?” repeatedly.

“At any point, did [Sismanis] ask you to make a deal?” Nagavelli asked.

“He said he would do anything … if I didn’t call the police,” the witness responded.

Believing Sismanis would continue to prevent her from driving away, the witness called the non-emergency line of the Hopkinton Police Department. Officers responded within minutes and directed the witness to drive to the police station, she claimed.

The entire interaction in the parking lot lasted almost 30 minutes.

Nagavelli also had the witness describe her relationship to Sismanis. She reported that she was a former resident of Hopkinton and used to frequent Sismanis’ former business, Jelly Doughnuts, during the time she was going to nursing school 30 years ago. 

“My father helped fix things in the pizza shop,” she added.

As to prior interactions, both witnesses noted that before starting the job at Hillers Pizza, the accuser had met Sismanis only briefly at a restaurant supply store several years ago.

Along with the testimony of both witnesses, Nagavelli showed jurors security camera footage from multiple cameras at 77 West Main Street. About nine videos in total were submitted into evidence, which showed the timeline of events from start to finish. Locations of the videos included the lobby of the building, the basement, inside Hillers Pizza and multiple angles of the parking lot.

There was no security camera that captured the alleged assault inside the supply closet.

Cataldo drills down on timelines

During his cross-examination of the accuser, Cataldo confirmed that she did not make an attempt to pull back from Sismanis when he grabbed her. 

“Did you yell, did you scream? You didn’t turn your cheek?” he asked, to which she replied she did not.

His line of questioning of the accuser included questions about her walking by the nearby liquor store and the location of her phone at the time of the incident.

“You never used the phone to call 911 at all,” he said.

In his questioning of the accuser’s mother, Cataldo picked at indiscretions in the timeline of events out in the parking lot. A discrepancy between the testimony of both witnesses called into question at what point the mother called the police.

“Is it your testimony now that you have already called the police when Mr. Sismanis is approaching the vehicle?” he asked. This conflicted with the accuser’s assertion that the call happened later, when Sismanis left the parking lot briefly.

“We’re three years out,” the witness said. “I don’t recall.”

A point Cataldo brought up in both cross examinations was a lawsuit filed against Sismanis by the accuser’s mother. 

“Sixty days later, you asked for $500,000,” he stated. The money would be for “full releases and an agreement,” he claimed.

Neither witness denied the existence of the lawsuit, but both argued it was not germane to the criminal proceedings against Sismanis.

In a redirect, Nagavelli confirmed with the accuser’s mother that both women had been subpoenaed by the Middlesex District Attorney’s office to appear and give testimony in the case.

The trial is expected to conclude tomorrow. Three HPD officers involved in the Jan. 12 incident are expected to take the stand to give testimony.