Indiana prosecutors have charged a homeowner with voluntary manslaughter after he fatally shot a cleaning woman through his front door, ruling his actions fell outside legal self-defense protections despite his belief that intruders were breaking in.
Story Overview
- Curt Andersen is charged with voluntary manslaughter for shooting Maria Velasquez, who mistakenly went to the wrong address.
- The prosecutor determined the shooting did not qualify for the Stand Your Ground law protection.
- Defense argues the castle doctrine applies, citing the homeowner’s reasonable belief of an invasion of the home.
- The victim was the mother of four and worked on the cleaning crew with proper keys.
Tragic Mistake Leads to Fatal Shooting
Curt Andersen shot 32-year-old Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez through his closed front door in Whitestown, Indiana. Velasquez and her husband were cleaning contractors who had arrived at the wrong address with keys provided by their employer.
The couple believed they were at a model home they were assigned to clean based on GPS directions. Velasquez died from a gunshot wound to the head, leaving behind four children, including an 11-month-old baby.
The incident occurred around 7 a.m. when Andersen heard what he described as a “commotion” at his front door. According to the probable cause affidavit, Andersen saw two people at his door and believed they were “thrusting” at the door with increasing aggression.
He retrieved his gun and fired a single shot through the closed door. Police found a spent cartridge casing on the stairs inside Andersen’s home and a bullet hole in the front door.
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
Stand Your Ground Law Doesn’t Apply
Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood announced the voluntary manslaughter charge after determining Andersen’s actions exceeded legal self-defense protections.
Eastwood stated that Andersen “did not have a reasonable belief that that type of force was necessary, given all the facts that he had at that time.” This ruling directly challenges the application of Indiana’s Stand Your Ground law, which typically protects homeowners who use force against perceived threats.
The prosecutor’s decision followed a comprehensive examination, including witness statements and crime scene analysis. Eastwood emphasized that the facts did not support a home invasion scenario.
Velasquez’s husband told police he never used force against the door and was simply trying to use the keys for approximately 30 seconds to one minute. The entire incident lasted about two minutes from arrival to the 911 call.
Defense Claims Castle Doctrine Protection
Andersen’s attorney, Guy Relford, argued that the homeowner’s actions fall under Indiana’s castle doctrine, which provides for self-defense. Relford contends that Andersen had “every reason to believe his actions were absolutely necessary and fully justified at the time.”
The defense emphasizes that criminal liability cannot be determined with hindsight, arguing that Andersen must be judged by the circumstances as he perceived them during the early morning encounter.
This case highlights the complex intersection of self-defense rights and reasonable force standards. While conservatives strongly support Second Amendment rights and castle doctrine protections, this tragedy demonstrates the critical importance of proper threat assessment before using deadly force.
The defense’s argument centers on the homeowner’s perception of imminent danger, while prosecutors focus on whether that perception justified a lethal response against unknown individuals at a closed door.
