A 48-year-old Narragansett man has been charged with raping someone 32 years ago when both he and the alleged victim were 16 years old, the attorney general’s office said this week.

Harold Allen, of 30 Riverview Rd., was indicted last month on a charge of first-degree sexual assault, and he pleaded not guilty, court records show. Allen is accused of raping the girl in North Kingstown between April 1 and Oct. 31, 1975, the records show.

“The traumatized victim decided back then not to tell anybody what happened and repressed the memory of it until recently,” said Michael J. Healey, a spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch’s office. “The victim came forward and made a complaint to the North Kingstown Police Department on June 15, 2006.”

No statute of limitations applies to charges of first-degree sexual assault, but Healey agreed it’s unusual for charges to be filed more than three decades after an alleged crime. “It is definitely out of the norm, but it’s not unheard of,” he said.

Healey said that after North Kingstown police referred the case to the attorney general’s office, state prosecutors presented the case to a grand jury on May 25 of this year, and the grand jury returned an indictment the same day.

The indictment was not announced. Rather, the attorney general’s office confirmed the indictment when contacted by The Journal this week. Healey said the indictment was not publicized immediately because Allen was unaware of the grand jury investigation and had not been arrested yet. Most cases involve an arrest or other publicly reported information that precedes grand jury action, but this one did not, he said.

After Allen was indicted, an arrest warrant was issued, but Allen voluntarily appeared in Washington County Superior Court on May 31. Healey said the indictment usually would have been announced at that point, but it was not because of an “administrative oversight.”

Allen appeared in court with his lawyer, Walter R. Stone, who said Allen had been aware of the grand jury investigation. Allen pleaded not guilty before Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Nugent, who ordered $10,000 surety bail, and Allen posted the required 10 percent. The judge also ordered Allen to have no contact with his alleged victim, which is standard procedure. Allen’s next court date is set for July 16.

Healey said the question arose of whether the case should be handled in Family Court or Superior Court. “If this incident happened today, it would be Family Court,” he said. “But Family Court never attained jurisdiction because no petition was filed against the defendant before his 21st birthday saying he had committed the crime before he was 18 years old. So you bring the charge in the court that would have had jurisdiction if the crime was committed by an adult. And that means the Superior Court.”

Stone said Allen is now married, has two children who are high school age or older, and has never faced any criminal charges before — not even a traffic offense. “He was shocked,” Stone said. “He says they never had intercourse — willing, unwilling or otherwise.”

Stone said Allen and the woman grew up in the same neighborhood and their families knew each other, but they were never boyfriend and girlfriend. “They were two teenagers who sat out on a rock and drank beer and wine in the neighborhood with other teenagers, as teenagers did,” he said.

Stone noted the court file contains no narrative of the alleged crime and that the single incident is alleged to have occurred within a seven-month time frame. He questioned whether prosecutors have physical evidence or just the allegation.

Stone has filed a motion for a “bill of particulars,” asking for “the exact location where this incident was to have occurred” and “the date this alleged incident took place.” Also, he has filed a discovery motion, seeking all written or recorded statements, lists of witnesses and other evidence that prosecutors intend to use at trial.

Stone said he plans to question whether his client should be tried in Superior Court. In 1975, the law required that juveniles receive a hearing before being waived out of Family Court, but Allen received no such hearing. Also, he noted the charge comes 32 years after the alleged incident, saying, “Even though there is no statute of limitations, there is unreasonable delay in bringing the case — that we know of yet — which puts the defendant at an unfair disadvantage.”

efitzpat@projo.com