"A Sheldahl man serving a 25-year burglary sentence for dragging his wife through the window of a van, was denied a new trial by the Iowa Supreme Court today. The full ruling is here.
The court said evidence against Taylor was "sufficient" to uphold the convictions of domestic assault and first-degree burglary.
Richard Taylor, father of the 27-year-old Taylor, said he was stunned by the verdict.
"I can't believe that hey could look at this case, read the transcripts, and look what's in front of them and rule this way," the elder Taylor said.
Taylor, who had no prior criminal records, contended he didn't intend to harm his wife, Susan, but only wanted to talk to her about saving their marriage. One judge said the 25-year sentence didn't fit the crime."
For those of you who might have missed it the first time around, I was a little peeved at the judge who said it didn't fit the crime, as you can see by my post back in April. The Des Moines Register article at the time stated:
"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."
Legal analysis aside, since both the Iowa Court of Appeals and the Iowa Supreme Court have ruled this fits the definition of burglary and domestic assault, if you want to know the answer to whether this guy deserves to be locked up, just look at the facts:
"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."
According to the Supreme Court opinion today, "pulling her out the window" wasn't such an easy task either:
"At one point, the victim placed some construction paper on her head and curled up into a fetal position on the car seat in an attempt to hide from the defendant . . . The record shows Taylor had difficulty getting Susan out of the van because she was still wearing her seat belt. According to Vincent, Susan’s feet became caught in the seat belt, and Taylor yanked violently on the victim four or five times to get her out of the vehicle."
As I said at the time:
"What the h*ll is the matter with the people at the Register? They describe this as "dragged his wife through the window of a van in 2001." That's it? He rammed the van, smashed the window, yanked his pregnant wife out through broken glass, forced her into his car and drove away, and this is how they describe it? And what is up with the judge? 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, who the h*ll are they made for? . . .
I am glad the Courts have affirmed the seriousness of this behavior. Unlike the insane federal sentencing guidelines for some drug offenses, this is a harsh but well-deserved sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment