Hi 29° | Lo 14°

Judge declares mistrial in Bourne child sex assault case

Stephen Bourne (left) talks with his atorney, Mark Sisti, at Merrimack County Superior Court, after Judge Richard McNamara declared a mistrial in the sexual assault case against Bourne; Thursday, January 24, 2013. 

(ALEXANDER COHN / Monitor staff)

Stephen Bourne (left) talks with his atorney, Mark Sisti, at Merrimack County Superior Court, after Judge Richard McNamara declared a mistrial in the sexual assault case against Bourne; Thursday, January 24, 2013. (ALEXANDER COHN / Monitor staff)

A judge declared a mistrial yesterday in the case of Stephen Bourne, a Concord man accused of repeated and brazen sexual assaults on a young girl that prosecutors say often took place while her mother, unaware of the abuse, sat in the same room.

The case fell apart when the mother took the stand Wednesday and told the jury that Bourne had showed her daughter pictures on his phone of “girls without many clothes on.” While it was unclear whether she meant child pornography, the testimony was problematic and according to Bourne’s lawyer, Mark Sisti, so prejudicial that its affect on the jury couldn’t be cured simply by telling them to ignore it.

Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara called the evidence “explosive,” and after breaking for the evening, he called a mistrial yesterday morning.

“Justice will not be done if this case proceeds,” he said, offering little reasoning for his decision and saying he would issue a written order soon.

As McNamara made the announcement, 53-year-old Bourne took a deep breath and leaned his head back but showed no sign of relief or frustration.

Deputy Merrimack County Attorney Catherine Ruffle said yesterday she intends to retry the case. Bourne is also scheduled for another trial in March on charges that he possessed child pornography.

Though he had requested a mistrial, Sisti called the outcome disappointing, saying he was “quite happy with the way the case was going.”

The proceedings were clearly painful for the now-12-year-old girl who accused Bourne of sexually abusing her between 2009 and 2010 during their regular movie nights at his home. Ruffle said in her opening statement the girl would sit in Bourne’s lap, their bodies covered with a blanket that shielded both the girl’s mother and Bourne’s wife, Janet, from seeing the assaults take place.

As the girl took the stand Wednesday, sitting stiffly in a white sweater buttoned to her neck, she struggled to describe the incidents, at times contradicting both her own statements and the version of events Ruffle laid out for the jury. She was timid and soft spoken. And she paused for long periods while Ruffle tried, through several strings of questions, to draw testimony about where Bourne had touched her.

Finally, the girl said it was where she goes “to the bathroom.”

But Sisti tried to show the jury Wednesday the girl’s story has changed since she first reported being assaulted to her doctor in 2011. Dr. Patricia Clancy testified that the girl had not told her Bourne penetrated her with his fingers.

The girl testified that she had shared that detail with Clancy.

Sisti noted the contradiction as a key reason he felt confident in how the trial was progressing. But he said the mother’s testimony, which came at the end of the day Wednesday, was too inflammatory for the proceedings to continue.

The mother’s testimony

The mother, who is not being named to protect the identity of her daughter, became confrontational during Sisti’s questions. But even before that, the woman had trouble giving succinct responses, either answering quickly and then continuing to other topics or being unresponsive to the questions.

“I was asking about (your daughter’s) demeanor prior to the office visit with Dr. Clancy. Could you tell me, did this occur before Dr. Clancy came into the exam room?” Ruffle asked.

“During the 20 minutes when we were waiting for Dr. Clancy to come (she) went from ‘I do not want to be touched’ to . . .,” the mother said.

She continued the last few words despite the judge’s attempts to cut her off.

“Wait, wait, wait a minute,” McNamara said. “I think you need to listen to the question. She’s asking you about (your daughter’s) demeanor.”

“She was in hysterics,” the mother said, again speaking over the judge.

“Okay. Okay. In response to Mrs. Ruffle’s questions, why don’t you answer it,” the judge said. “The question, I believe, was describe her demeanor. Not what she said but her demeanor.”

The mother answered, but as Sisti began his questioning, the woman didn’t follow the judge’s instructions.

The girl had testified that Bourne once came to her home in 2011, touched her on her back in a way that made her uncomfortable and asked to take a picture of her on his phone. When the mother was asked about that day, she testified she had gone outside looking for Bourne and her daughter.

Sisti asked her whether she saw him take a picture of the girl.

“I did not see. He put it in his hand, in his pocket and he went off through the gate and into his car in a second,” she said.

So Sisti asked the mother whether she had questioned what Bourne was doing.

“I did not ask him,” she said. “I asked my daughter.”

“And . . .” Sisti said, posing another question.

But the woman continued speaking.

“ ‘Mommy he was showing me pictures of girls without many clothes on. I didn’t like it.’ That is exactly what she said and continued to say for days after that and months after that and a year after that,” the mother said.

McNamara dismissed the jury a few moments later. Before they returned, Sisti requested a mistrial.

And while Ruffle argued the pictures could have been of girls in bathing suits, meaning Bourne hadn’t been accused of any crimes beyond the ones he was on trial for, McNamara didn’t seem to agree, noting that the girl appeared to be traumatized.

Sisti yesterday called the mother’s claim “false testimony” and said the woman hadn’t made that disclosure before in police reports or interviews.

Other setbacks

The mistrial is just the latest snag in the case.

Bourne was first scheduled for trial in October but a judge called it off shortly before the jury entered the courtroom. In a statement dated that day and now filed in court, the girl backpedaled on the information she initially told the police, writing that she didn’t remember Bourne touching her “privates” or “chest area.”

The trial was postponed and Sisti filed a motion to dismiss the case. Ruffle objected, saying the girl hadn’t distinguished between the abuses alleged to have taken place at her home in Contoocook, which she no longer remembered, and at Bourne’s home, which she still felt comfortable testifying about.

Before the trial began Tuesday, Ruffle dropped two of the charges against Bourne, leaving only one charge of aggravated felonious sexual assault in Concord and two counts of simple assault in Contoocook.

Because the judge said the mistrial wasn’t the state’s fault, Ruffle can prosecute Bourne on the same charges again.

Ruffle declined to comment on whether the girl and her family would like another trial. While saying she intends to continue with the charges, Ruffle added that if the family decided the process was too painful she would likely respect their wishes.

“Everything has a price tag attached to it,” she said. “And the decision of whether to go forward or not has to be considered as to what cost that brings to the family and the experience they’re going to have to go through.”

McNamara didn’t say yesterday when the trial could be rescheduled. Bourne could end up facing the child pornography charges first, as that case is scheduled for a March 18 jury selection.

(Tricia L. Nadolny can be reached at 369-3306 or or on Twitter @tricia_nadolny.)


'Explosive' testimony in day 2 of Bourne's abuse trial

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

A mistrial could be declared this morning in the case against Stephen Bourne after testimony the judge called “explosive” was given yesterday by the mother of the girl Bourne is accused of sexually abusing. Bourne, of Concord, is on trial at Merrimack County Superior Court this week facing accusations by a now-12-year-old girl who said Bourne touched her between 2009 …

Lawyers make opening statements in Bourne sex assault trial

Thursday, January 17, 2013

The jurors craned their necks toward the loft, where just a slanted ceiling and an adjoining shingled wall were visible from the staircase where they stood. Stephen Bourne abused a young girl in that secluded space, a prosecutor told the jury yesterday. But Bourne was allegedly more brazen than that. The Concord man, on trial this week for pattern sexual …

Sexual assault trial starts today

Thursday, January 17, 2013

A Concord man accused of sexually assaulting a young girl will go on trial today, though the alleged victim has said in court documents that she doesn’t remember him touching her inappropriately. Stephen Bourne was first scheduled for a trial at Merrimack County Superior Court in October, but a judge called it off shortly before the jury entered the courtroom. …

Legacy Comments8

This guy is a pervert and of course the reason they had to drop some charges is because of the "reasonable doubt." But I believe in the walking like a duck theory and this is not the first time for this guy not to mention child porn on his computer. The girl has already been harmed and it is not her fault and telling the truth about it does not make it her fault it only shows how disgusting this guy is. .

Tillie; All that is needed to achieve that are few key words. Not graphic detail. And I was asking if the Monitors own editors would have approved this type of detail in the 1970's.

Well maybe all I mean is that people need the graphic details to see the enormity of the crime. I also feel if the graphic pictures of the dead children at Sandyhook were seen (which for the families' sake I don't want to happen) I feel gun control would have passed in a hearbeat. Also the editors of the 70's didn't have the competition they have now to get the news from the internet. I don't believe there is more child abuse now than in the past, it is just that the dirty little secret is being brought out in the open and that is a very good thing and children should know that abuse from anyone, friend of the family, priest, family members is not acceptable and if you speak up something will be done about it.

NH Driver, how many of the newspapers that existed in the 70's are still with us? The internet gives everyone all the news quicker and in gory details. The girl's name and her family is not mentioned. I think if this pervert gets off at least the details of his horrible crime will have been made public and hopefully warn any other people who have young daughters and are thinking of hiring him and leaving him alone with them.

Sorry Tillie, using the internet as an example of why it is okay to publish graphic details does not justify anything. The internet is a cesspool of bad reporting, graphics, and in many cases borders on filth. That is why we monitor our kid's usuage of the web and why we had to monitor what our kids watched on TV. The media is not what it use to be. And in a lot of ways, that is a bad thing.

Tillie, this guy may be a "pervert," and he may have committed a "horrible crime," and he may yet "get off." That's how our legal system is supposed to work. The state has the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt within the constraints of allowable evidence and testimony. If they screw up or if one of their witnesses misbehaves on the stand, then the state has failed in it burden. I observed a trial years ago in which a prosecution witness made up a whole new, damning narrative under oath leading to an innocent defendant's being sent to prison. At least this guy seems to have effective representation.

This sucks on so many levels.

Tricia; You get thumbs down for the second day in a row submitting the graphic transcript details for the world to read as news. You have done a child harm. To the editorial staff I pose the following question; Would an editor have approved this type of graphic display in reporting a mistrial in say the 1970's ?

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.