Lead: A 62-year-old Indiana homeowner, Curt Anderson, was arrested and charged with voluntary manslaughter after a house cleaner who mistakenly arrived at the wrong home was shot and killed outside that door on Nov. 5 in Whitestown, an Indianapolis suburb in Boone County. Authorities say the victim, 32-year-old Guatemalan immigrant Rios Perez, was shot in the head and died at the scene in the arms of her husband, Mauricio Velásquez. Anderson was booked Monday and is being held without bail, according to jail records and statements from Boone County prosecutors. Prosecutor Kent Eastwood told reporters his office concluded Anderson did not have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.
Key Takeaways
- Curt Anderson, 62, was charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter and is being held without bail, per Boone County jail records.
- The shooting occurred on Nov. 5 in Whitestown; the victim, Rios Perez, was 32 and died after being shot in the head.
- Perez and her husband had gone to the address by mistake while heading to a day’s work as house cleaners; Perez left behind four children, aged roughly 11 months to 17 years.
- Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood said Indiana’s self-defense protections do not apply in this case and that Anderson “did not have a reasonable belief” that such force was needed.
- Indiana law grants broad discretion to use “reasonable” force to prevent serious bodily injury, a standard defense attorneys say is vague and jury-dependent.
- Defense attorney Courtney Benson-Kooy noted the jury will decide whether a defendant actually believed lethal force was necessary, highlighting an evidentiary burden at trial.
Background
The case landed at the intersection of two recurring public issues: homeowner use of force and the safety of immigrant laborers. Indiana law has been described by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike as offering substantial protections for people who claim they were defending themselves; however, prosecutors emphasized that those protections are not absolute. Public debate around “stand your ground” and similar self-defense statutes has intensified nationally after several high-profile shootings, and local officials said they were conscious of that context while presenting the decision to charge.
Rios Perez, identified by family and local reports as a Guatemalan immigrant, was one of two cleaners who went to the wrong house shortly before the shooting. Her husband, Mauricio Velásquez, has been cited by family members and local media as present at the scene; accounts say Perez died in his arms. The prosecutor’s office relied on witness statements, booking records and other investigatory material to file the voluntary manslaughter charge against Anderson.
Main Event
According to the prosecutor, on Nov. 5 Perez and her husband arrived at a residence in Whitestown where the homeowner encountered them outside his front door. The homeowner, Curt Anderson, is accused of firing a single shot that struck Perez in the head. Local reports and family statements indicate Perez collapsed and died at the scene.
Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood told reporters Anderson “did not have a reasonable belief that that type of force was necessary, given all the facts,” and said that, after reviewing the evidence, his office determined the case did not fall under the state’s self-defense protections. Anderson was taken into custody and booked on a voluntary manslaughter charge; he remains held without bail while the case proceeds.
Defense counsel for Anderson was not immediately available for comment on the arrest and charge. Prosecutors described their decision to charge as straightforward after assessing the available evidence, while local defense attorneys cautioned that a jury will ultimately weigh whether Anderson genuinely perceived an imminent threat.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the case tests how Indiana’s self-defense framework is applied when a homeowner confronts someone who turns out to be at the wrong address. Prosecutors argued the facts showed Anderson lacked a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. That distinction — “reasonable belief” versus a defendant’s subjective fear — is often decisive in trials over use-of-force incidents.
In practical terms, the charge signals prosecutorial willingness to pursue criminal liability even in jurisdictions with expansive self-defense statutes when investigators believe available evidence undermines a self-defense claim. The prosecutor’s public comments sought to balance respect for Indiana’s laws with an explanation of why they do not shield Anderson in this specific matter.
The case is also likely to reverberate in local immigrant and labor communities, where workers who provide door-to-door services may feel increased vulnerability after a colleague’s death. Community leaders and local officials may press for clearer guidance or training on how to prevent misdirected visits and how homeowners should react when an uninvited person appears at their door.
Comparison & Data
| Law or Standard | Typical Wording | How Prosecutor Framed It Here |
|---|---|---|
| Indiana code (self-defense) | Allows use of “reasonable” force to prevent serious bodily injury | Prosecutor says the evidence shows Anderson did not reasonably believe deadly force was necessary |
| Common “stand your ground” interpretation | Permits force without duty to retreat when a person reasonably believes it is needed | Prosecutor emphasized protections exist but do not apply based on case facts |
The table shows the tension between statutory language that permits defensive use of force and prosecutorial determinations about what behavior meets the “reasonable” standard. Defense experts stress the ambiguity of “reasonable” and that a jury frequently must resolve differing accounts of perceived danger.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials and legal representatives gave brief public comments as the case was announced, reflecting the legal and community dimensions of the incident.
“He did not have a reasonable belief that that type of force was necessary, given all the facts.”
Kent Eastwood, Boone County Prosecutor (official comment)
“It’s going to be completely up to the jury to determine whether the person actually believed that they were in fear.”
Courtney Benson-Kooy, Indianapolis defense attorney (executive committee, Indiana Bar Criminal Justice Section)
“Honestly it wasn’t… it was not a hard decision.”
Kent Eastwood, Boone County Prosecutor (on the charging decision)
Unconfirmed
- Whether Anderson explicitly told investigators he believed he was under threat at the moment he fired has not been publicly disclosed.
- No publicly released video or full eye-witness timeline confirming the sequence of events is available at this time.
- The homeowner’s stated motive, if any, and whether any additional charges will be pursued remain unreported.
Bottom Line
The arrest and manslaughter charge against Curt Anderson turn on whether a jury later finds his use of deadly force objectively unreasonable under Indiana law. Prosecutors say the facts do not support a self-defense claim; defense lawyers emphasize that jurors must ultimately judge a defendant’s claimed fear and reasonableness.
For the Whitestown community and for workers who visit private homes, the case raises urgent questions about safety protocols, communication to avoid wrong-address visits, and how homeowners should respond to unexpected visitors. The next steps to watch include any arraignment, disclosure of additional investigative materials, and whether prosecutors seek an indictment or broader charges as the investigation continues.
Sources
- NBC News — national news report summarizing the arrest and prosecutor statements
- Boone County, Indiana — official county website (government)