A homeowner’s split-second decision to fire through his locked door transformed a simple cleaning mix-up into a deadly tragedy that now challenges the very foundations of Indiana’s self-defense laws.
Story Overview
- María Florinda Ríos Pérez, 32, was fatally shot while arriving at the wrong house for a cleaning job
- Homeowner Curt Andersen fired through his locked door without warning, believing someone was breaking in
- Andersen charged with voluntary manslaughter as prosecutor rules shooting doesn’t qualify for self-defense protection
- Case ignites national debate over castle doctrine laws and homeowner liability in mistaken identity situations
When Address Mix-ups Turn Fatal
The morning of November 5th began routinely for María Florinda Ríos Pérez and her husband. Armed with cleaning supplies and what they believed was the correct address, the Indianapolis couple arrived at a home in Whitestown’s Heritage subdivision. Their cleaning company had provided the wrong location, setting in motion a chain of events that would end with Ríos Pérez’s death and a homeowner facing manslaughter charges.
Inside the house, Curt Andersen heard someone attempting to use keys on his locked and dead-bolted door. Without announcing himself or attempting to communicate, Andersen retrieved his handgun, instructed his wife to hide, and fired through the door. The bullet struck and killed Ríos Pérez instantly.
The Legal Battle Over Castle Doctrine
Thirteen days after the shooting, Boone County prosecutors charged Andersen with voluntary manslaughter, declaring his actions fell outside Indiana’s self-defense statutes. This decision directly contradicts Andersen’s legal team, who argue the castle doctrine fully justified their client’s response to perceived intruders attempting entry with keys.
The prosecutor’s office reviewed extensive evidence before concluding Andersen’s rapid escalation to deadly force violated legal standards. Defense attorney Guy Ralford maintains his client acted within his rights under state law, setting up a courtroom battle that will test the boundaries of homeowner protection statutes across the nation.
A Tragedy Born of Miscommunication
The victim’s family attorney describes this as “a case they’ve never seen before,” emphasizing that Ríos Pérez was simply trying to perform her job. The cleaning company’s address error created a perfect storm of misunderstanding, where legitimate work became perceived as criminal activity in seconds.
What distinguishes this case from typical home invasion scenarios is the complete absence of criminal intent. Ríos Pérez and her husband genuinely believed they belonged at that address, attempting to use keys provided for their cleaning assignment. The homeowner’s failure to communicate before resorting to lethal force becomes central to the prosecution’s argument that self-defense laws don’t apply.
Implications Beyond One Tragic Morning
This case exposes vulnerabilities in service industry protocols while raising uncomfortable questions about homeowner responsibilities during perceived threats. The shooting has prompted discussions about address verification procedures and the tragic consequences when miscommunication meets split-second decisions involving firearms.
The outcome will likely influence how courts interpret castle doctrine protections nationwide, particularly in cases involving unarmed individuals present due to errors rather than criminal intent. Legal experts note the challenge of balancing homeowner rights with worker safety, as service employees regularly enter residential properties using keys and codes provided by their employers.
Sources:
Separating fact, fiction in Whitestown shooting of Maria Florinda Ríos Pérez de Velázquez
