An Indiana homeowner faces voluntary manslaughter charges for fatally shooting a cleaning woman through his front door, raising critical questions about when Stand Your Ground protections apply to lawful gun owners defending their homes.
Story Highlights
- Curt Andersen is charged with voluntary manslaughter for shooting Maria Velasquez, who mistakenly went to the wrong address.
- Prosecutor ruled Andersen’s actions don’t qualify for Indiana Stand Your Ground law protections.
- Defense argues the castle doctrine applies, claiming the homeowner acted on a reasonable belief of home invasion.
- The victim was the mother of four who died from a gunshot wound to the head while trying to clean what she thought was assigned home.
Homeowner Charged Despite Castle Doctrine Claims
Curt Andersen sits in Boone County jail on a no-bond hold after prosecutors determined his fatal shooting of 32-year-old Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez doesn’t meet Indiana’s Stand Your Ground law requirements.
Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood announced the voluntary manslaughter charge following a comprehensive examination, stating Andersen lacked a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. The shooting occurred in Whitestown when Velasquez and her husband arrived at what they believed was their assigned cleaning location.
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
Tragic Case of Mistaken Identity
Velasquez, a mother of four with an 11-month-old baby, died from a gunshot wound to the head while standing on Andersen’s front porch. Her husband, Mauricio Perez-Velasquez, witnessed the shooting, telling investigators they had keys from their employer and believed they were at a model home based on GPS directions.
The couple spent only 30 seconds to one minute trying to unlock the door before the fatal shot came through the closed entrance. Police found no evidence supporting a home invasion, with the victim’s husband confirming he never used force or banged on the door.
Legal Battle Over Self-Defense Rights
Andersen’s defense attorney, Guy Relford, argues the castle doctrine clearly applies, insisting his client had every reason to believe his actions were justified based on his perception of events.
Relford contends prosecutors are unfairly judging Andersen using hindsight rather than evaluating circumstances as the homeowner perceived them that early morning.
The defense maintains Andersen woke to what sounded like aggressive attempts to break in, with the affidavit noting he described individuals “thrusting” at his front door with increasing aggression.
Prosecutor Defends Decision Against Misinformation
Eastwood dismissed criticism of his charging decision, calling it straightforward rather than difficult despite community prayers and support. The prosecutor condemned “false and misleading information” circulating since the shooting, particularly claims that Andersen was a police officer, emphasizing that the homeowner has no law enforcement connection.
Eastwood stressed that such misinformation undermines the integrity of the judicial process and harms both the victim’s family and the accused’s right to a fair trial. When informed about the tragic mistake, Andersen reportedly became upset, put his head down, and said he didn’t mean for anything to happen to anybody.
