An Indiana homeowner faces manslaughter charges after fatally shooting a cleaning woman who mistakenly tried to enter the wrong house, raising critical questions about when self-defense laws apply and the tragic consequences of split-second decisions.
Story Overview
- Curt Andersen is charged with voluntary manslaughter for shooting Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez through his front door.
- Prosecutor determined Andersen’s actions didn’t qualify for Indiana Stand Your Ground law protections.
- The victim was a mother of four who mistakenly went to the wrong address with her husband while cleaning homes.
- Defense attorney argues castle doctrine applies, claiming Andersen perceived a genuine threat in the early morning incident.
Tragic Mistake Leads to Fatal Shooting
Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez, a 32-year-old mother of four from Indianapolis, died from a gunshot wound to the head after arriving at the wrong address in Whitestown.
She and her husband, Mauricio, had been cleaning homes for 7 months and believed they were at a model home assigned to them via GPS directions. The couple had keys from their employer and spent only 30 seconds to one minute trying to unlock the door before the fatal shot occurred.
An Indiana man has been charged with voluntary manslaughter for fatally shooting a cleaning woman who mistakenly went to the wrong home, prosecutors announced. https://t.co/x1QqcuXaoV
— ABC News (@ABC) November 17, 2025
Prosecutor Rejects Stand Your Ground Defense
Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood announced voluntary manslaughter charges against homeowner Curt Andersen after determining his actions exceeded legal self-defense protections.
Eastwood stated Andersen lacked “reasonable belief that that type of force was necessary, given all the facts that he had at that time.” The prosecutor called the decision straightforward, noting that it was based on a comprehensive examination of witness statements and crime scene evidence. Andersen fired through a closed front door after claiming he heard aggressive “thrusting” sounds and saw two people attempting entry.
Castle Doctrine Dispute Takes Center Stage
Defense attorney Guy Relford argues that Andersen’s actions fall under Indiana’s castle doctrine, emphasizing the homeowner’s perception during the early-morning incident.
Relford contends Andersen believed his actions were “absolutely necessary and fully justified” based on circumstances as he understood them. The defense maintains that criminal convictions cannot be based on hindsight knowledge unavailable at the time of the event. However, the victim’s husband testified he never banged on the door or used force, contradicting Andersen’s account of aggressive behavior.
This case highlights the delicate balance between legitimate self-defense rights and the responsibility to accurately assess genuine threats. The tragedy underscores how miscommunication and rushed judgments can destroy innocent lives while potentially criminalizing homeowners who believe they’re protecting their families.
Both families now face devastating consequences from what appears to be a series of unfortunate misunderstandings rather than criminal intent.
