WHITESTOWN, IN — A Whitestown man is now facing a voluntary manslaughter charge after fatally shooting a woman through his front door in what prosecutors allege was not justified under Indiana’s self-defense laws. But others, including his legal team, argue that the homeowner acted lawfully under the state’s castle doctrine. The case raises complex questions about self-defense, perception of threat, and the limits of legal protection when deadly force is used.
The incident occurred on the morning of November 5, 2025, when Curt D. Andersen, 62, fired a single round through his locked front door from the top of his staircase, striking and killing Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez. Andersen told investigators he believed someone was attempting to force entry into his home. The person outside, however, was not an intruder but a cleaning worker who, along with her husband, had mistakenly gone to the wrong address while trying to access a model home nearby.
According to law enforcement, there was no sign of forced entry, and the front door remained locked and intact. The couple reportedly had been trying to use keys they were given for a cleaning job, unaware they were at the wrong house.
Andersen’s attorney, Guy Relford—well known for successfully defending Elisjsha Dicken, the civilian who stopped an active shooter at an Indiana mall in 2022—issued a statement pushing back against the prosecutor’s decision. “We believe Mr. Andersen had every reason to believe his actions were absolutely necessary and fully justified at the time,” Relford stated. “The law does not allow a criminal conviction based on hindsight. Instead, Mr. Andersen’s actions must be evaluated based on the circumstances as he perceived them.”
Indiana’s castle doctrine allows a person to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into their home. The Boone County Prosecutor’s Office has asserted that Andersen’s actions do not meet this standard, resulting in a Level 2 felony charge of voluntary manslaughter.
However, the facts of the case—as described in court documents and the probable cause affidavit—suggest that Andersen was operating under significant fear and confusion. He did not issue a verbal warning, and neither he nor his wife ever made contact with the individuals outside before the shot was fired. His wife later confirmed they heard someone at the doorknob but did not know who it was.
The shooting has led to a wider discussion: Should a homeowner be criminally charged if they mistakenly believe someone is trying to break into their home? Does the law protect such split-second decisions under stress and fear? Or should the actual intent and actions of the people outside matter most?
Andersen remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. His legal team has made it clear they intend to fight the charge vigorously in court.
This tragic case underscores the critical importance of training and preparation for those who keep firearms for self-defense. Homeowners must consider how they would assess and respond to a potential threat in low-light, high-stress situations. While Indiana law provides strong protections under the castle doctrine, the justification for deadly force hinges on the reasonableness of the belief that such force was necessary to stop an unlawful entry.
