Staff photo / Ed Runyan Samuel Aponte-Rodriguez, 26, is handcuffed late Thursday after a guilty verdict was read in his rape trial. His attorney, Michael Kivlighan is at left.

YOUNGSTOWN — A jury found Samuel Aponte-Rodriguez, 26, of Campbell guilty Thursday of raping a child at a home in Campbell in late 2022, and he will get at least 15 years to life in prison.

The jury deliberated about five hours after getting the case. It found him not guilty of a second rape count and guilty of gross sexual imposition. The rape carries a 15-years-to-life sentence, and the gross sexual imposition could add five more years.

Aponte seemed to slowly realize the reality of the guilty verdict as deputies handcuffed him and had him sit back down in his chair. He eventually dropped his head completely below the table as Judge John Durkin of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court finished reading the verdicts.

The trial, which started with a partial day of jury selection Tuesday and testimony Wednesday and Thursday, included testimony by the young victim; members of the Campbell Police Department, which handled the investigation; and personnel from the Akron Children’s Hospital Child Advocacy Center. There were no defense witnesses.

Kevin Day, county assistant prosecutor, said in opening statements that the girl went to her babysitter’s house the day of the rapes while her mother went to work, and the relative who picked the child up told her mother that the girl was reporting “discomfort” in her private area.

The mother testified Wednesday that she took the girl to an urgent care the next day to see if she was having a urinary tract infection, but also asked the girl if someone had touched her. The girl told her that the babysitter’s stepson had touched her. The girl’s mother took the girl home and then took her to Akron Children’s Hospital two days later, where police were called and an investigation began.

The final witness in the trial was Amanda McAllen, a nurse practitioner at Akron Children’s Hospital, who testified to her role in examining the child and observing the interview that another staff member carried out at the Child Advocacy Center about 10 days after the girl’s first trip to Akron Children’s Hospital.

She compared her examination of the girl to be similar to a medical “checkup” or “well visit.” It started with gathering facts about the child’s medical history, in this case from the child’s mother, and learning about the concerns that brought the child to the facility, she said. After a hospital social worker talked to the child, McAllen did a “complete head-to-toe examination,” including an examination of the child’s private areas.

Then a treatment plan was created and discussed with the child’s mother. The child was then interviewed by another staff member. McAllen listened to the interview to help her determine the treatment the child needs, McAllen said.

The technique the other staff member uses to interview a child is to ask “open-ended questions and allow the patient to give their own recollection of what occurred to them,” McAllen said.

McAllen testified that the girl described “sexual, inappropriate touching” and other things. Knowing these facts allowed McAllen to know whether additional testing or treatment was needed, she said.

To ensure that the child is relaying the facts accurately, McAllen uses anatomical male and female drawings “to make sure they identify what they are talking about correctly,” McAllen said. For instance, if a child’s body part was touched or an adult’s body part touched the child, the child circles the part, she said.

McAllen said that when she watches an interview of a child in a sexual assault matter, she looks for details that a child of that age typically would not have encountered or know about, called “experiential” details, McAllen said.

McAllen testified that when someone is assessing a child for possible sexual assault, there are three “levels” of diagnosis — “a concern, a suspected, or a confirmed or highly concerning.”

McAllen started to say which level she found in this case, and Michael Kivlighan, Aponte-Rodriguez’s attorney, objected, saying the objection was to “allow the jury to decide.” But Durkin allowed the testimony. McAllen testified “In this case, I found ‘highly concerning and confirmed’ based on experiential details.”

Day asked if he understood correctly that McAllen “found that this case was highly concerning for sexual abuse?” McAllen answered “Yes.”

Under cross examination, Kivlighan asked McAllen if she recalled that during the interview with the child, the child identified a male with a name different than Aponte as having “touched her,” and McAllen said, “I vaguely recall that.”

Kivlighan asked if she recalled that the girl said the male was “a kid,” and McAllen said, “I don’t recall that.”

Kivlighan asked if McAllen remembered the child saying who the male (child) lived with, and McAllen said, “I do recall that.”

He asked McAllen if she recalled that the child said the male did not live in the house where the rapes allegedly took place.

“I don’t recall that,” McAllen said.

In opening statements in the trial, Kivlighan told jurors that during the interview of the girl, she accused a boy of committing offenses against her.

“And what happened after that? Nothing,” Kivlighan said. “Was there any additional investigation on who this (boy) was? Did the police follow up on this? No.”