I was bothered by this article in the Des Moines Register, and decided to do a little investigating of my own. The article states:

The Iowa Supreme Court said Monday that it would review an appeals court ruling that upheld the burglary conviction of a Sheldahl man who dragged his wife through the window of a van in 2001. The announcement gave new hope to Nathaniel Taylor, who is serving a 25-year prison sentence. Records show that the Iowa Court of Appeals is reversed in about 75 percent of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. . . .

Taylor, 27, was convicted of first-degree burglary and sentenced to a mandatory 25-year term. It was his first criminal conviction. His wife, Susan, has defended him, saying that he didn't intend to harm her during the incident and that they were attempting to save their marriage. Chief Judge Rosemary Sackett of the appeals court said in December that Taylor's punishment didn't fit the crime. "I do not wish to diminish in any respect the defendant's action," Sackett wrote. "But I question whether society is served by filling our state prisons . . . with people like this defendant." She said anger-management classes might have been a better solution.

Taylor's case gathered new attention in March when The Des Moines Register reported that he was unable to see his wife for at least a year because of a prison rule that bars visits by spouses until inmates complete anger-manage- ment and batterer-education classes. Taylor hasn't been able to get the training because the classes have been limited by budget cuts, and he gets bumped by other inmates with earlier release dates.

The article left me feeling a bit sorry for Mr. Taylor, and wondering if a 25 year sentence might be a bit harsh for a first conviction, given all the pro-Taylor rhetoric. So I looked up the appellate case.

The facts of STATE V. TAYLOR:

"Susan Taylor (Susan) obtained a no-contact order against her husband, Nathaniel Taylor (Taylor) and moved into her friend Michelle Vincent's (Michelle) home. The petition for relief from domestic abuse filed by Susan alleged that in September 2001 Taylor pushed Susan into a door, causing her to fall while she was holding their daughter and was also pregnant. It further alleged that in October 2001 Taylor became upset when Susan was not home when he wanted her to be. When she did return home Taylor was angry, had placed a gun with bullets on the table, told Susan to put the kids to bed, and that he wanted to take her out to the garage to kill her.

After staying with Michelle for five days, Susan, Michelle, and their children attended evening church in Michelle's van. After church they were planning to stop at the store when they saw Taylor drive by. Michelle was driving the van, Susan was seated in the front passenger seat, and Michelle's three children and Susan's two children were in the back of the van. Michelle followed Taylor for awhile to see if he knew where she lived, but then went back to the church parking lot because she thought there would be people there who could help. Michelle also called the police on her cell phone to tell them what was going on. Once back at the church lot Taylor confronted Susan, in violation of the protective order.

According to Michelle's testimony, Taylor got out of his vehicle and began pounding on the passenger window with is hand saying 'I just want five f---ing minutes, you f---ing bitch.' When Michelle attempted to drive away Taylor got back into his vehicle and tried to ram or block the van from driving away. At that point Michelle again called the police. While Michelle was talking to Detective Pote on her cell phone Taylor continued demanding that Susan talk to him and jumped on the hood of the van, denting the fender. He pounded on the windshield and cracked it. He hit the passenger side window and it shattered. Taylor then proceeded to pull his five-month pregnant wife out through the broken window. He pushed her into his vehicle and drove away. Taylor drove behind some storage units where they could not be seen from the street. A short time later, Taylor and Susan walked to the police station and he turned himself in to the police for violating the no-contact order. Susan did not file a written report on the incident but only wrote one word and stopped. Detective Pote believed she stopped because she was 'in a state of shock' and she just 'kept looking straight ahead.'. . .

Dr. Davis-Kramer testified that when she examined Susan at the hospital she discovered bruises and abrasions on Susan's chest, shoulder, and scapula. She further testified that although Susan initially did not complain of any pain, she indicated she had some pain when palpated by the doctor. Michelle testified that she stayed home with Susan the day after the incident because Susan was really stiff and sore. Michelle also stated that Susan asked her to rub her back and in doing so she noticed Susan had multiple bruises on her back, as well as cuts and abrasions on her hands. While welts, bruises and similar markings are not physical injuries per se, they are frequently evidence from which the existence of a physical injury can be found."

It should also be noted that the trial court admitted evidence that evidence that he pushed Susan and threatened to kill her in September and October of 2001. It was admissible as evidence of Mr. Taylor's intent in committing these acts, which he put at issue during trial.

This is what the Register describes as "dragged his wife through the window of a van in 2001"? That's it? According to the facts of the case, he rammed the van, smashed the window, yanked his pregnant wife out through broken glass, forced her into his car and drove away. If our prisons aren't meant for people who threaten to kill their wives and essentially kidnap them in a violent manner in broad daylight, for whom are they constructed?

I understand that she has recanted her earlier reports, but there are independent witnesses. Recantation is common even in meritorious cases of domestic abuse.

To take a look at the law in this case:

713.1 Burglary defined. Any person, having the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft therein, who, having no right, license or privilege to do so, enters an occupied structure, such occupied structure not being open to the public, or who remains therein after it is closed to the public or after the person's right, license or privilege to be there has expired, or any person having such intent who breaks an occupied structure, commits burglary.

702.12 Occupied structure.
An "occupied structure" is any building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures, land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or safekeeping of anything of value.

"A bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. State v. Gordon, 560 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Iowa 1997)." (quote from Taylor's appellate court case).

713.3 Burglary in the first degree.
1. A person commits burglary in the first degree if, while perpetrating a burglary in or upon an occupied structure in which one or more persons are present, any of the following circumstances apply:

c. The person intentionally or recklessly inflicts bodily injury on any person.

2. Burglary in the first degree is a class "B" felony.


902.9 Maximum sentence for felons.
The maximum sentence for any person convicted of a felony shall be that prescribed by statute or, if not prescribed by statute, if other than a class "A" felony shall be determined as follows:
1. A felon sentenced for a first conviction for a violation of section 124.401D, shall be confined for no more than ninety-nine years.
2. A class "B" felon shall be confined for no more than twenty-five years.

From what I'm reading:
1) He had no right to be in her van pursuant to the no contact order.
2) He entered it, violently.
3) He had the intent to commit an assault according to the trial court, as may be inferred from his actions at the time and his prior death threats.
4) She was stiff, sore, and had bruises cuts and abrasions, sufficient to find physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

Based on this, it appears the indeterminate sentence was appropriate under section 902.9. As far as the visitation issue goes, Mr. Taylor has already made it eminently clear to what lengths he will go to maintain contact with this woman, regardless of any court orders to the contrary. However, that's not relevant on whether his conviction should stand.

UPDATE:
It's occurred to me that in the interests of full disclosure, I should mention I spent most of the five years I was a prosecutor handling domestic violence cases.