Hillers Pizza owner Petros “Peter” Sismanis was found guilty of indecent assault and battery on a person over 14 years of age and two counts of witness intimidation Thursday after a two-day trial in Framingham District Court.

The jury was quick with its deliberation, reaching a verdict on all three counts in less than 30 minutes. Sentencing was held a few hours later, on Thursday afternoon.

On the indecent assault and battery charge, Sismanis was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison, with six months to serve and two years suspended. For that charge he also received three years probation and will be required to register as a sex offender in Massachusetts. Sismanis was given three years probation for both counts of witness intimidation. All charges were to be served concurrently.

The charges against Sismanis stemmed from an incident on Jan. 12, 2023, when he brought the then-16-year-old girl down to the Hillers Pizza supply closet in the basement of the establishment at 77 West Main Street. The victim alleged that out of view of security cameras, Sismanis — who was the victim’s boss — grabbed her around the waist and kissed her on the mouth.

The two counts of witness intimidation, which counted for both the victim and her mother, came into play when the mother picked up her daughter and attempted to leave. Video evidence showed Sismanis repeatedly making motions at the vehicle and putting his body in the way, preventing it from leaving.

There was no visible reaction from Sismanis nor the victim, who was in court as well, while the guilty verdicts were read.

Lt. McNeil takes stand

Pavan Nagavelli, assistant district attorney for the Middlesex District Attorney’s office, ended the prosecution’s case Thursday morning with one final witness: Hopkinton Police Lt. Matthew McNeil.

Now an administrative lieutenant with the HPD, McNeil was the evening patrol supervisor on Jan. 12, 2023. During Nagavelli’s questioning, McNeil detailed how he was the first officer to the scene and what he saw.

Hopkinton police had arrived at the parking lot of Hillers Pizza close to 9:30 p.m. that evening after receiving a call that Sismanis was blocking the mother’s vehicle from exiting the plaza.

The lieutenant was one of three officers who first responded to 77 West Main Street that night. McNeil was joined by Sgt. Shannon Beloin and Officer Augusto Diaz. In his testimony, McNeil detailed how Sismanis was ordered to return inside the restaurant while he talked with the mother.

“I spoke with the mom,” said McNeil. “I told them to go to the police station.”

Sgt. Beloin escorted the witness and the victim to the Hopkinton police station, where she was reported to have taken the victim’s statement.

McNeil then detailed how he returned to Hillers Pizza with Officer Matthew LaTour after the restaurant had closed to speak with Sismanis.

“He was wondering what [the victim] said to us and why we were there,” the lieutenant said. “He said he just brought her to the basement to show her supplies.”

McNeil went on to testify that Sismanis claimed he only touched the victim’s shoulder. Nagavelli brought LaTour into the courtroom so McNeil could demonstrate the action for the jury.

Then, according to the lieutenant, the story changed. In another demonstration with LaTour, McNeil described how Sismanis’ story morphed to him putting his arm around the victim’s shoulder and leaning in to kiss her forehead.

All the while, Sismanis pleaded his innocence to the police officers, McNeil claimed.

“He said he didn’t do anything sexual — that he would lose everything,” he reported.

On his cross-examination, Sismanis’ defense attorney, Joseph Cataldo, probed McNeil about the evidence officers gathered in the case.

“Did you watch all the video footage?” Cataldo asked. “You didn’t interview the employees. … You didn’t get a list of the people who were working?”

These questions were prompted by McNeil’s earlier testimony that he had reviewed portions of camera footage Sismanis had played for him and LaTour. Those videos were of the basement of 77 West Main Street — about which McNeil said, “I didn’t see anything” — and a video from behind the counter at Hillers Pizza.

The counter video was not played for the jury but recounted by McNeil. He stated that the video depicted a time following the supply closet incident when Sismanis was standing behind the victim in the restaurant.

“It seemed like he was intimidating her,” McNeil remarked.

McNeil responded to Cataldo by noting the case was handed off to an HPD detective after he had talked with Sismanis, and he was not involved in further evidence gathering.

Motions to dismiss denied

Judge Matthew McGrath denied three motions to dismiss each charge against Sismanis during a brief administrative session before the defense’s case-in-chief.

During that session, Cataldo and Nagavelli went back and forth on case law regarding indecent assault and battery and witness intimidation.

Cataldo’s main assertion was that prior case law asserted that “sexual overtones” needed to be present to consider the assault and battery indecent. He argued the kiss was brief, according to the victim, and that Sismanis never touched a “private area” on her body.

Nagavelli was frank in his rebuttal.

“No matter the length, it’s an unconsensual kiss that has sexual connotations,” the prosecutor said, noting the defendant’s age and position of authority. He also pointed to Sismanis’ actions afterward.

“Clearly he knew he did something wrong when he lied to the police,” Nagavelli added.

“I’m going to deny the motion at this time, but I’m going to think about it,” McGrath said to Cataldo.

Defense points to videos

Cataldo called no witnesses in the defense of his client. Instead, he played four videos for the jury that previously had been submitted into evidence.

Three of the videos showed camera angles of a five-minute period of time when the mother’s vehicle was parked while Sismanis walked back into Hillers Pizza and back out, just before police arrived. The fourth video showed the victim interacting with coworkers and socializing following the incident in the basement.

In his closing remarks, Cataldo referenced the videos and reiterated points he had made in his opening statement.

“The charges don’t meet the facts, you will find,” he told the jury.

He reiterated that it was the victim who initiated the trip down to the supply closet, that Sismanis never closed the door when they entered and suggested that the victim was in a “normal mood” in the roughly 90 minutes between when the incident occurred and when her mother picked her up.

Just as in his opening statement, Cataldo did not deny the interaction took place. He characterized the behavior Sismanis exhibited afterward — which he argued was not threatening or coercive — as “pleading for what he believed to be his future.”

As to why the victim would make her allegations at all, Cataldo said: “There’s 500,000 reasons why they’re seizing upon an opportunity to exaggerate.” The comment referenced an outstanding lawsuit for $500,000 against Sismanis by the victim’s mother.

In his closing remarks, Nagavelli pushed back on Cataldo’s continued assertion that the victim made no effort to resist or find someone to report the crime to in the immediate moments afterward.

“What is demanded of women and children these days when they’re approached by people of authority?” Nagavelli asked the jury.

He posed a similar question regarding the mother’s decision to remain in the parking lot, musing whether a reasonable person would “drive through someone” to get away from them.

Nagavelli also addressed the concerns about decency and consent, once again highlighting the age gap between Sismanis and the victim. He used the analogy of a schoolteacher committing the same actions to ask the question whether what Sismanis did would be considered indecent as the law prescribes.

“This case is about what we think is right in our society,” Nagavelli concluded.

History factors in sentencing

Once the verdict was read, the prosecution and defense presented arguments to McGrath regarding Sismanis’ sentence.

Key to the commonwealth’s recommendation on the indecent assault and battery charge — 2 1/2 years in prison with 18 months to serve — was Sismanis’ history of sexual assault charges.

Nagavelli informed the judge that the defendant pleaded out to an indecent assault and battery charge in 1998.

Much like what Sismanis was charged with in this case, the conviction in 1998 involved a 19-year-old employee of his former business, Jelly Doughnuts. The victim in that case reported Sismanis repeatedly fondled her breasts and vagina.

Sismanis was put on the sex offender registry as a result of that case, but according to Nagavelli, he was removed in 2018.

“Five years later, this offense happened,” Nagavelli said. “He initiated contact with what could have been his next potential victim.”

After hearing from Cataldo regarding the “erratic behavior” that governed the defendant’s witness intimidation charges and assurances that he believed Sismanis would not violate any condition the court gave him, McGrath handed down sentencing.

“It was a terrible thing that happened to [the victim], even if it did not rise to the level of some other assault and battery we see,” McGrath noted.

McGrath opted for 2 1/2 years in prison with six months served in the house of corrections and two years suspended, along with probation for all three charges.

At sentencing, the victim’s mother read a brief statement written by the victim. In the statement, the victim noted it was “not easy to tell my story” and referred to Sismanis as a “horrific, hurtful person.”

“I hope you have the time to reflect, because all actions do have consequences,” the statement read.

Defense insists case not over

In a brief statement to the Independent following the conclusion of the trial, Cataldo said there would be more to come in his client’s case.

“We’ll be filing post-trial motions,” he noted. “I think there’s a lot of merit to these motions for a new trial.”

Added Cataldo: “We think the facts and law don’t match in this case, and we’ll seek to correct them.”

Nagavelli declined to comment on the case following conviction.