In a case testing the limits of the grand jury system, the state’s highest court has agreed to review the dismissal of charges against a Vineyard Haven businessman who was indicted for child rape solely on the basis of a police officer’s testimony.

The charge and five other charges of indecent assault on a child were dismissed this spring against Carlos G. Stevenson, owner of Mosher Photo, by the Hon. Cornelius J. Moriarty. In a May 19 decision remarkable for its forceful language, Judge Moriarty criticized the Cape and Islands district attorney’s office for not having the accuser testify and relying on hearsay evidence alone in seeking an indictment from a Dukes County grand jury.

Dismissal of the charges were made “without prejudice,” meaning that charges could be brought again.

Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe appealed Judge Moriarty’s decision, and Mr. Stevenson, through his attorney, petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court to take the case directly, skipping the usual path of appeal through the Massachusetts Appeals Court. On Oct. 5, the court agreed to hear the appeal.

Over the years, prosecutors have been given wide latitude in how they present cases to grand juries. While Judge Moriarty acknowledged that appellate courts have repeatedly upheld indictments based solely on hearsay, he said this case “presents such extraordinary circumstances” that the indictment should be dismissed.

Mr. Stevenson was indicted by a Dukes County grand jury on Oct. 6, 2014. When prosecutor Laura Marshard presented the case, the only witness she called was Det. Mark Santon, a Tisbury police officer with extensive training and experience investigating sex crimes, who had interviewed the accuser. The accuser, 23 at the time she made the charges, gave him a detailed account of alleged repeated molestation that began thirteen years earlier, when she was 10 years old.

Judge Moriarty wrote that the accuser (identified only as Jane Doe in court documents) was available to testify, and that there was no good reason for her not to appear before the grand jury.

“The practice of reliance on hearsay, rather than upon the testimony of Doe, was pernicious for three reasons,” Judge Moriarty wrote. “First, it allowed the grand jury to rely upon evidence that appeared consistent and smooth, as articulated by Santon, an experienced witness. Second it deprived the grand jury of the opportunity to assess Doe’s credibility. This is particularly important here, where there are no other witness to the alleged crimes, no admission or confession by the defendant, and no forensic evidence of any sort. This case, like many others, is all about credibility. The grand jury should have been given the opportunity to hear from her firsthand, and observe her demeanor and appearance in order to assess her credibility.

“The third reason the practice is undesirable,” the judge continued, “is that it denied the defendant his opportunity to obtain pre-trial discovery. There was no probable cause hearing here. The defense knows only what Santon said Doe said. By virtue of the commonwealth’s effort to have Doe speak to the grand jury through the voice of another, it deprived the defendant of his opportunity to utilize grand jury testimony in cross-examining her when she testified at trial.”

District attorney O’Keefe was equally forceful in his belief that the grand jury’s decision to issue an indictment should not have been vacated by Judge Moriarty.

“The judge is wrong, as a matter of law,” Mr. O’Keefe said in a telephone interview with the Gazette. “This isn’t a parking ticket that the judge is wrong about. This is a rape indictment. We’ll do what we feel is appropriate to protect the victim.”

Mr. O’Keefe said it is the prosecutor’s job to represent the accuser, while balancing an aggressive prosecution with the rights of the accused.

“We are always careful about those rights,” he said.

In the commonwealth’s argument opposing dismissal of the charges, Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Marshard wrote that state law allows dismissal of a grand jury’s indictment only if the prosecutor failed to produce evidence of the crime, when the prosecutor knowingly presents false evidence, or when the prosecutor doctors evidence. They argued that the evidence presented does not come close to warranting dismissal of the charges under the limited exceptions they cited, and that they were not obligated to call the accuser to testify.

“Defendant cites no authority which requires the alleged victim testify before the grand jury,” the prosecutors wrote. “Defendant cites no authority prohibiting the use of hearsay testimony in the grand jury. There is no evidence suggesting the grand jury requested additional testimony than provided by Det. Santon. Det. Santon’s role is to present the testimony of the victim, not to evaluate and present this opinion of the victim’s testimony. It is clear the grand jury had sufficient evidence to find probable cause to indict Mr. Stevenson.”

Judge Moriarty wrote in his ruling that there is another important issue that informed his opinion, the rights of Mr. Stevenson.

“The defendant here is charged with crimes that are abhorrent to society,” the judge wrote. “A conviction almost always brings justifiable severe punishment. But nearly as severe is the mere return of an indictment. A defendant will have to pay legal expenses, which are expensive, and suffer with the loss of his job or business. Worse, one who is simply accused of a sexual offense, whether major or minor, may never recover from the serious damage that an indictment does to their reputation. They will have lifetime repercussions as a result. No matter what, a person’s life and accomplishments will be forever stained by the mere accusation.”

Janice Bassil of the Boston law firm Bassil, Klovee and Budreau, who represents Mr. Stevenson, said her client “adamantly, absolutely” denies the charges, and said he has suffered from the accusations.

“His life has been turned upside down,” she said. Even if he ultimately prevails, she said, the indictment alone tarnished him “especially in some place as small as Martha’s Vineyard.”

In a sign of the importance the state’s highest court places on the legal issues, the justices have asked interested parties to file “friend of the court” briefs to help them make their decision, which could have wide implications for prosecutors and defense attorneys.

The court outlined the issues it hoped to receive comments about: “Whether the judge erred in finding that the commonwealth’s use entirely of hearsay evidence (i.e., the investigating police officer’s testimony) to obtain an indictment was, in the circumstances, ‘pernicious’ and constituted the type of ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that required dismissal of the indictment.”

Lawyers for both sides are expected to argue the case before the Supreme Judicial Court in January, with a decision expected later in the year.