Supreme court upholds Freeport man’s kidnapping and rape convictions

PORTLAND – The Supreme Judicial Court on Monday denied a Freeport man’s appeal of his kidnapping and rape convictions, rejecting arguments that key out-of-court statements made by the victim should not have been admitted as evidence.

The justices also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Thomas “Chris” Rega, 40, despite the woman’s assertion during sentencing that the sex had been consensual and that Rega should be treated for mental illness instead of being sent to prison.

Rega was sentenced to 20 years for gross sexual assault, with all but 15 years suspended, and given concurrent prison terms of 10 years for kidnapping, 10 years for criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon and five years each for assault and terrorizing.

The woman, who had been involved with Rega for 13 years, recanted her allegations when she testified at his trial in November 2003, but jurors heard a tape recording of the ordeal in which she told Rega to put down his knife and he could be heard screaming and threatening to kill her.

Prosecution witnesses included a police officer and the owner of a flower shop where the victim had fled. The police officer quoted the victim as saying Rega held her hostage and forced her to perform sexual acts while he held a knife to her head.

Earlier, the woman blurted to the shop owner, “I’ve been held hostage, lock the doors, he’ll kill us both.”

Although some of the victim’s statements should not have been admitted because they were not part of her “excited utterance,” the error was harmless because of the low probability that it would affect the verdict, the court concluded.

The justices also brushed aside Rega’s challenge to the admission of testimony by a state psychologist that he did not have an abnormal mental condition at the time of the offenses.

Although the defense had not yet raised the issue of abnormal state of mind, the court noted that it had opened the door to evidence about Rega’s mental condition in its opening statement and during cross-examination of the victim.