Indiana homeowner charged with voluntary manslaughter after house cleaner was shot at wrong doorstep

Lead

An Indiana man has been charged with voluntary manslaughter after authorities say he shot and killed a house cleaner who went to the wrong front door on Nov. 5. Curt Anderson (also referenced as Andersen in court filings), 62, faces 10 to 30 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine if convicted. The shooting occurred on the front porch of a Whitestown home, a suburb of Indianapolis, and prosecutors say available facts do not support a claim that the victim entered the house. The case raises questions about how Indiana’s stand‑your‑ground law applies when someone approaches a door by mistake.

Key Takeaways

• Curt Anderson, 62, was charged Monday with voluntary manslaughter in the Nov. 5 shooting of 32‑year‑old Maria Florinda Rios Perez De Velasquez on a Whitestown front porch.
• Prosecutors say Anderson could receive 10 to 30 years behind bars and up to a $10,000 fine if convicted on the charge.
• Authorities report Rios was part of a cleaning crew that arrived at the wrong address just before 7 a.m.; she was found dead on the porch with a gunshot wound through the front door.
• Police say there is no evidence Rios had gained entry to the home; investigators found a bullet hole but no signs of forced entry to the door, latch or frame.
• Indiana is one of 31 states with a stand‑your‑ground law; prosecutors argue that protection does not apply because Anderson did not have sufficient information to reasonably fear unlawful entry.
• Anderson’s attorney, Guy Relford, says his client believed deadly force was justified and that the law protects his actions; Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood disagrees and announced the charge after a news conference.

Background

Indiana’s stand‑your‑ground statute removes a duty to retreat and permits use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent unlawful entry or to stop an imminent threat inside a dwelling. That legal framework has prompted intense public scrutiny in cases where a visitor is mistakenly perceived as an intruder. Nationally, several high‑profile incidents involving mistaken door knocks or driveway approaches have led prosecutors to test the limits of such laws in court.

Whitestown sits northwest of Indianapolis and, according to court documents, the shooting took place just before 7 a.m. on Nov. 5. The victim, identified as Maria Florinda Rios Perez De Velasquez, was 32 and a mother of four; her husband, Mauricio Velasquez, told investigators they were attempting to open the front door with cleaning‑service keys because their crew had the wrong address. Local law enforcement and the county prosecutor are handling the criminal case; the matter will proceed through the Boone County court system.

Main Event

According to the probable cause statement, Anderson said he and his wife were asleep upstairs when he heard a “commotion at the door” and noises he believed were someone trying keys or tools. He told investigators he went to an upstairs landing, saw two people at the front door through a window and felt he had to act. He reported loading his handgun, returning to the window, seeing what he described as people “thrusting” at the door, and firing a single shot through the front door without announcing himself.

Officers discovered Rios on the porch with a fatal gunshot wound. Her husband said he did not realize she had been shot until she fell back into his arms, bleeding. Investigators documented a bullet hole in the door but reported no evidence of forced entry to the door, latch or frame. Prosecutors emphasize that Rios and her husband never entered the home, never knocked or banged in a manner consistent with forcible entry, and did not hear voices from inside.

Anderson’s wife, identified in the probable cause statement as Yoshie Andersen, told investigators that her husband had told a neighbor he would shoot anyone trying to break into their house. The statement does not specify when that remark to the neighbor was made. After the shot, Anderson reportedly told his wife to call 911; neither he nor his wife went downstairs before officers arrived.

Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood said at a news briefing that charging Anderson was not a difficult decision. Eastwood told reporters he believes prosecutors can show Anderson could not have reasonably concluded deadly force was necessary based on what he knew at the time.

Analysis & Implications

This prosecution tests the boundary between a homeowner’s right to protect a dwelling and the legal threshold for a reasonable belief of imminent unlawful entry. Stand‑your‑ground statutes hinge on what a defendant reasonably perceives in the moment; prosecutors must prove that a reasonable person in Anderson’s position would not have believed deadly force was necessary. That is a high but not insurmountable evidentiary bar: juries will weigh the sensory cues Anderson reported—sounds at the door, perceived aggression—against forensic and witness evidence indicating no forced entry.

Beyond the courtroom, the case has broader social and policy implications. It spotlights risks faced by service workers and immigrants who routinely approach homes in the course of employment, and it may prompt local discussion about signage, lighting, or communication protocols for contractors and cleaning crews. Politically, similar incidents have spurred calls for clearer state guidance on the use of force at home and prompted prosecutors to more aggressively scrutinize initial claims of self‑defense.

Legally, the outcome could influence prosecutorial guidelines elsewhere in Indiana by clarifying how much information a homeowner must have before invoking statutory immunity. If prosecutors secure a conviction, it could signal that stand‑your‑ground protections are narrower in practice than some advocates assert. Conversely, an acquittal or dismissal could reinforce expansive readings of the statute and affect how similar cases are charged.

Comparison & Data

The table contrasts how similar fact patterns have produced different prosecutorial strategies and case outcomes. In Missouri and New York, prosecutors pursued charges despite defendants invoking self‑defense; outcomes ranged from guilty pleas to convictions, illustrating that statutory differences and local prosecutorial choices matter. The Whitestown case will be watched for how Indiana courts assess reasonableness under the state law and how juries respond to split evidence about threat perception versus actual entry or force.

Reactions & Quotes

Anderson’s attorney expressed disappointment at the charge and framed the shooting as an act the defense believes is protected under Indiana law. The attorney emphasized evaluating Anderson’s actions from his perception at the time.

“Mr. Anderson’s actions must be evaluated based on the circumstances as he perceived them.”

Guy Relford, Defense Attorney

Prosecutors counter that Anderson did not have enough information to reasonably believe deadly force was necessary, and they said the decision to charge reflected that assessment.

“Stand‑your‑ground protections don’t apply because Anderson lacked enough information to know if his actions were reasonable.”

Kent Eastwood, Boone County Prosecutor

An academic observer called the facts disturbing and atypical, noting the legal and social issues that arise when visitors to private property are treated as intruders. The commentator highlighted common law principles about lawful access to porches and driveways and cautioned against equating presence on a porch with criminal intent.

“This case is horrible and exceptionally unusual,”

Jody Madeira, Indiana University law professor

Explainer / Glossary

Unconfirmed

• Whether Anderson actually thought the people at the door intended to unlawfully enter has not been independently corroborated beyond his statements to police.
• The timing and context of Anderson’s alleged comment to a neighbor about shooting intruders is not specified in the public probable cause statement.
• Exact timeline details from surveillance or independent witnesses that could confirm or refute the husband’s account of the 30‑ to 60‑second attempt to open the door have not been made public.

Bottom Line

The case crystallizes a core legal question: when does a homeowner’s perception of threat cross the line into unreasonable use of deadly force? Prosecutors will argue that available evidence—no forced entry, the victim still on the porch, and the short window of interaction—cannot support that legal threshold. The defense will lean on the homeowner’s fear, the sounds reported at the door, and statutory protections that remove a duty to retreat.

How jurors and ultimately the courts weigh perception against objective indicators will shape not only this prosecution but future charging decisions in Indiana. Regardless of the criminal outcome, the incident raises urgent practical concerns about worker safety, neighborhood communication, and how quickly split‑second reactions can produce irreversible harm.

Sources

• Associated Press (news) — original reporting and probable cause details