PEOPLE OF MI V THOMAS CHARLES TABORELLI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 10, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 234051
Isabella Circuit Court
LC No. 99-008971-FH
THOMAS CHARLES TABORELLI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Hoekstra and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC)
(sexual penetration by an assailant armed with a weapon), MCL 750.520b(1)(e), armed robbery,
MCL 750.529, and first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2). He was sentenced as an
habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 37-1/2 to
60 years for CSC, 35 to 60 years for armed robbery, and 24 to 60 years for home invasion. He
appeals as of right raising a single issue, and we affirm.
Defendant testified in his own behalf at trial and generally denied the charges against
him, claiming that sex with the victim was consensual and that he stole nothing from her.
During his testimony, defendant claimed that after having sex with the victim he went to a casino
and gambled for two days and then went to Columbus, Ohio, to keep a previously scheduled
doctor’s appointment. A medical emergency resulted in defendant’s hospitalization for four days
in Columbus, Ohio, before he returned to Michigan where he was arrested and charged.
After defendant’s testimony, the prosecutor sought to admit rebuttal testimony from the
doctor in Columbus, Ohio, to the effect that there had been no scheduled appointment and that
the doctor only saw defendant after he was admitted to the hospital and then only on request of
an internist for a neurological consultation. Defendant objected to the rebuttal testimony on two
grounds: that it would violate the physician-patient privilege and that because it was to be
conducted via videoconference it would violate his right to confront the witness. The trial court
overruled defendant’s objections and the doctor testified via videoconference that she saw
defendant in the hospital on the request of the treating internist for a neurological consultation,
and that a review of the records in her office did not show any appointment with defendant had
been scheduled and that neither she nor her partner saw defendant in their office.
-1-
On appeal, defendant argues a completely different basis for his objection to the rebuttal
testimony, i.e., that it was improper impeachment of his testimony on a collateral matter.
Defendant’s argument fails.
An objection on one basis at trial is not sufficient to preserve an appellate attack based on
a different ground. People v Stimage, 202 Mich App 28, 30; 507 NW2d 778 (1993); People v
Canter, 197 Mich App 550, 562; 496 NW2d 336 (1992). Therefore, defendant has not preserved
his objection to the doctor’s brief testimony on the grounds claimed on appeal. Moreover, even
if the claim were properly before us, we would find no error requiring reversal. People v
Carines, 460 Mich 750; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
