A jury found a former Wisconsin pastor and president of a Baptist State Convention not guilty of child sex assault, according to court records.
Robert Stine was acquitted of two counts of first-degree child sex assault after four hours of deliberation from the jury, several local news outlets report.
He previously served as the pastor of Midvale Baptist Church in Madison, Wisconsin, led the church’s Kid’s Best daycare program, and served as president of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention.
The jury’s verdicts concluded a two-day trial that included testimony from both Stine and his accuser, who is now 15 years old. The girl had accused Stine of assaulting her on two separate instances while she attended the church’s daycare and summer camp in 2019, The Roys Report (TRR) previously reported. She was 10 years old at the time.
After Stine heard his verdicts, the 61-year-old briefly sat alone at the defendant’s table while supporters seated behind him wept and hugged each another, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive a copy of “Safe Church: How to Guard Against Sexism and Abuse in Christian Communities’ by Dr. Andrew Bauman, click here.

Stine’s attorney, Christopher Van Wagner told News 3 that Stine is “grateful the jury looked closely at the evidence and reached the right decision.”
Van Wagner added, “My client thanks all those whose prayers lifted him up during this case.”
The accusations against Stine were first reported to the police in 2021. He was then charged last August, TRR reported. He pled not guilty to both of his charges.
In June 2023, Stine lost his license to operate the church’s Kid’s Best childcare facility following an investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families and the Madison Police Department, TRR reported.
Stine then resigned from Midvale Baptist Church in August, Attorney Van Wagner said. He added that Stine didn’t resign because “he did anything wrong but because he wants (to) spare the church and its members any unnecessary distraction or concern.”
During Stine’s trial, the girl told the jury that Stine assaulted her first on Martin Luther King Jr.’s Day in 2019 and again in the summer of that same year, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
Van Wagner asked jury members to question if the young girl’s statements were logical and believable. Van Wagner pointed out small inconsistencies in her testimony.
For instance, he noted that the girl had said another adult was present at the church on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. However, other witnesses testified that Stine was always the sole adult who worked on days like this when schools were closed, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.
“Test the truth of the vague, blurry claims that were remembered after a period of years. Did you hear the witness change some things on the stand?” Van Wagner said, according to Channel 3000.

Stine also testified that he only vaguely remembers the girl. He does know, though, that he didn’t assault her, he said.
“What I do know is I didn’t touch her inappropriately. That much I’m clear about,” Stine said, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
The prosecution contested that the girl’s claims were consistent. Members of her family and church, along with a detective involved in the case, testified on her behalf, Channel 3000 reported.
Stine’s former church, Midvale Baptist, is still looking for a permanent pastor, according to its website. Currently, “the pulpit is filled each Sunday morning by men who bring the word of God to us.”
Stine had worked at the church since 2007, TRR reported. Prior to that, he led a church in Iowa and graduated from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Freelance journalist Liz Lykins writes for WORLD Magazine, Christianity Today, Ministry Watch, and other publications.
17 Responses
This is good news for him but who is going to apologize for spreading bad news about the now proven innocent man?
Stine was not exonerated. He was found not guilty. There’s a big difference. But to all those who consigned him to hell in the first article, you should reconsider your rush to judgement. Perhaps if a civil suit is filed, a judge/jury may rule in favor of the plaintiff using the lower standard. Then you may have something to talk about.
Daniel,
I’m not too proud to ask to be educated. What is this big difference between being found not guilty and being exonerated?
Thanks,
David Till
Being found not guilty means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him in a court of law. It is still possible that he did commit the crime. And appeals and/or a civil trial are still possible. Exoneration is when it is blatantly obvious that a person didn’t do a crime, such as when a person is accused but then it turns out that different person is proved to be the one who committed the crime.
According to the legal sites, exoneration is when a person was previously convicted of a crime but new evidence has come forth to prove that the individual didn’t do the crime. So to be “exonerated” a person has to have been previously convicted, which in this case the individual was not.
I don’t believe there is any category for being “exonerated.” In court you are either guilty or not guilty. One doesn’t have to prove innocence, one has to prove guilt. But I too will await Daniel’s legal .response
Rebecca’s reply covers it. Alan said Stine was proven innocent implying he was exonerated (it never happened), but he wasn’t. The verdict was “not guilty” aka he was acquitted. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove innocence because defendants are already innocent until proven guilty. The options are guilty or not guilty. The burden for a civil suit is a much lower standard, preponderance of the evidence. This means that the plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that their version of events is true. It’s possible Stine did commit a crime, but the prosecution failed to prove it. It appears the victim/witness was not credible.
OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman yet very few people complained when the police declined to continue the investigation into the double murder because everyone involved in the case knew that OJ Simpson was the killer, regardless of the fact that the prosecution had failed to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt.
The state fails to convict guilty people all the time. It’s going to be up to the local community to decide whether he can be trusted to be their pastor again, and the “Not Guilty” verdict is just one of several data points they will have to consider.
I served as an intentional interim pastor for several months. One of the saddest experiences I had was with a little girl, maybe 7 years-old or so. She was from a “broken” home. Her parents handed her off to the grandparents. The grandparents didn’t attend church, but this little girl, as I recall, was part of the bus ministry. She often came and greeted me during after service snack time. I believe she was looking for affection–a hug, I thought. But I didn’t hug her. I was concerned, perhaps too much so, that the hug would look inappropriate. This happened about 13 years ago and it still bothers me. I wonder if I should have risked it.
James, you showed the love you could just by spending time and having conversations. Your instincts were correct not necessarily for your sake but hers. If she came from a broken home, there was a high likelihood of abuse and so any physical contact from her perspective would not be innocent. That could easily turn into extended hugs and eventual clinginess. I think in those situations you have to trust she was getting that from grandma or other women around her.
James, I think you made the right decision.
I’ve written a number of child protection policies — including ones for my own organization — and I’m closely familiar with other organization’s policies as well. It’s widely considered to be best practices to prohibit adults from initiating a hug with a child. If a child chooses to hug you, you may in most cases reciprocate briefly, appropriately and in the presence of other responsible adults. But you shouldn’t be the one to make the move.
in American jurisprudence, a verdict of “not guilty” is not a declaration of actual innocence on the part of the accused, only that guilt has not been proven as opposed to exoneration, which is a finding of actual innocence. The difference is illustrated by reference to the verdict in Scottish jurisprudence of “guilty, but not proven,” i.e., the jury or judge is not convinced of the innocence of the accused but do not find the evidence sufficient for a conviction.
I am so so sad for that poor girl. I hope she finds justice somewhere, even if it’s not in the amreican court system. These cases are incredibly hard to prove, and leave a trail of broken children in their wake.
Ms Manlief, how do you know that justice was not served? The accused was declared innocent by the jury.
Louis, he was not declared “innocent”. Innocence is conferred on criminal defendants in the american “justice” system, and the prosecution then has to provide enough evidence to convince a jury that he is guilty. the prosecution did not meet that, for whatever reason. It does NOT mean that he did not do it. The point of our justice system is to make it harder to convict innocent people- the result of that is guilty people go free sometimes. (until race enters the picture, but that’s another topic).
I have been around enough children and women who have been victims to believe them every time. I believe this child. It is also entirely possible that the pastor truly believes he did nothing wrong- it doesn’t mean that’s accurate. It’s incredibly hard to come forward and name a spirtual authority as an abuser, and then to go through trail, face him, and face people calling you a liar- as a child. There is no reason to do that unless it’s true.
I hope this man is never allowed around children unsupervised again ESPECIALLY because he believes he did nothing wrong.
First, thanks to all who gave an answer to my sincere question!
Second, may I say that while I understand the difference between criminal guilt (and that at different levels of the court system until each side has exhausted its means) and civil guilt (with similar tiered courts), it seems from the explanations that I have been provided that while, “not guilty,” is a verdict rendered within a court, “exonerated,” is a subjective term defined within the mind and sensibility of each individual. I may be wrong on this, but that is the sense that I got from the range of answers given.
In any case, I don’t believe justice will ever be served where clergy abuse is alleged, whether in a court or in a church setting, until statutes of limitation for such actions are GREATLY extended, and until the imbalance of power between often but not always minors and the clergy being accused is recognized and adequately addressed. This is why the work of lawyers such as Boz Tchividgian is so important, as is the (so far nonexistent?) work within seminaries to properly train clergy on such matters.
Again, my thanks to each of you that answered!
The term “exonerated” for our purposes is usually applied to someone who was convicted of a crime and later found to be innocent because exculpatory evidence was discovered, the accuser recanted, or the real perpetrator came forward. It means they definitely did not commit the crime. There are numerous cases where innocent persons were convicted on relatively weak or circumstantial evidence.