The state Supreme Judicial Court has reversed a Dukes County superior court judge’s decision to throw out an indictment against a Vineyard Haven man accused of child sex offenses.

As a result, the case involving Vineyard Haven businessman Carlos Stevenson will return to court for trial this fall.

Last fall the Hon. Cornelius J. Moriarty, an associate justice of the superior court, dismissed the indictment returned by a grand jury in October 2014, which charged Mr. Stevenson with one count of aggravated rape of a child by force and five counts of indecent assault and battery on a child. The alleged victim had come forward in 2014 to make accusations of crimes she said occurred 14 years earlier.

In a 16-page opinion issued this week, SJC justice Robert Cordy ordered the court to reinstate the six-count indictment against Mr. Stevenson, and sent the case back to the superior court, where a trial is now scheduled for October.

Cape and Islands district attorney Michael O’Keefe, who had appealed the decision by Judge Moriarty to dismiss the indictment, hailed the outcome in a news release this week. He said decision affirms the prosecutor’s right to present evidence to a grand jury, including hearsay evidence, without including direct testimony from the victim.

“I felt the reasoning of the motion judge was seriously flawed and would unnecessarily visit additional trauma on victims of sexual assault,” Mr. O’Keefe said in the release.

The attorney representing Mr. Stevenson’s case before the SJC took an opposite view. “I’m disappointed,” said Janice Bassil. “I thought the trial court judge wrote a strong opinion and I thought he was right.”

The case tested the limits of the grand jury system, which has a dual role under the state constitution. The grand jury, a panel of citizens, is simultaneously charged with finding whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed, and protecting citizens against unwarranted criminal prosecution.

In his ruling last fall to dismiss the indictment, Judge Moriarty said the prosecutor’s actions violated Mr. Stevenson’s rights when she relied solely on the testimony of the investigating Tisbury police detective, and did not call the victim before the grand jury.

“This case, like so many others is all about credibility,” the judge wrote at the time. “The grand jury should have been given the opportunity to hear from her firsthand, and observer her demeanor and appearance in order to assess her credibility.”

The high court disagreed. Justice Cordy cited numerous cases where state courts have ruled that an indictment is permitted based solely on hearsay evidence.

“The defendant acknowledges that no appellate court in the commonwealth has affirmed the dismissal of an indictment solely because it was based on hearsay, and we do not perceive a need to alter our long-standing general rule,” he wrote.

The case is complicated by the timing of the charges. And while Justice Cordy acknowledged that in such cases, the courts have occasional admonished prosecutors that direct testimony before a grand jury is preferable, he wrote that there were no extraordinary circumstances in this case that warranted dismissal of the charges.

“The grand jury in the present case heard all the information available to the police at the time of the grand jury proceedings, and were able to render an informed decision as to the indictments,” Justice Cordy wrote. “If members of the grand jury had been uncertain about returning indictments based on the hearsay testimony regarding a case that was 14 years old, they could have requested the presentation of further evidence.”

In a footnote to his decision, Justice Cordy wrote that the defendant argued that the grand jury may not have been aware they had the power to call additional witnesses. The grand jury proceedings did not reflect what the grand jurors were instructed. He said it would be helpful if the superior court crafted a model instruction for use by judges when they empanel a grand jury which outlines their authority.