‘Stand your ground’ law could make or break Whitestown man’s defense

Despite its medieval name, the “castle doctrine,” a common law practice that argues for the right of a homeowner to protect their dwelling, has become increasingly prominent in both legislation and case law in the last several decades in the United States.

Its centuries-long application has evolved into other self-defense legal protections in numerous states, including Indiana, where the state’s “stand your ground” law is currently being assessed in light of the shooting of a 32-year-old house cleaner who was killed while mistakenly trying to enter the wrong Whitestown home last month.

Experts anticipate Indiana’s law will be the central debate when the case goes to trial next year, with the defense and prosecution arguing over whether the law justifies the homeowner’s actions in the early morning hours of Nov. 5.

“You are looking at a very fact-specific argument, and the law has crafted itself around this space to be highly fact-specific, because you’re looking at the objective reasonableness that’s being grafted onto a person in a potentially stressful situation,” said Bradley Keffer, a criminal defense attorney and managing partner at Keffer Hirschauer LLP in Indianapolis.

He is not involved in the Whitestown case. Guy Relford, the defense attorney in the Whitestown case, declined to comment for this story.

The law’s history

Indiana’s “stand your ground” law can be traced back to the “castle doctrine,” a right embedded in common law that permits a person to reasonably protect their homes from opposing force, Keffer explained.

The sentiment is often tied to a 17th century musing from English judge Sir Edward Coke that a man’s castle is his home and can therefore be defended against violence.

The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are often used interchangeably, but in Indiana, the doctrine is a piece of the stand your ground law, said Zachary Cormier, an associate professor of law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

“There’s kind of a broader self-defense law, stand your ground law, and then a component of that is a castle doctrine, which refers specifically to self-defense rights within the home,” he said.

Indiana’s stand your ground law states that a person does not have a “duty to retreat” and allows a person to use force against another when that force is reasonably perceived as necessary to protect themselves, a third party, or a person’s home.

Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2 states that a person is “justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person…if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling.”

Indiana was one of the last states to codify a castle doctrine law in 1977. The state took self-defense protections further in 2006 with the passage of the state’s stand your ground law.

In 2012, the state became the first to amend its stand your ground law to give Hoosiers the ability to use reasonable force against public servants, like police officers, if the person reasonably believes the force is needed to protect themselves against the imminent use of unlawful force.

This perceived “reasonability” is at the crux of the state’s law and arguments surrounding it.

To determine whether the stand your ground law covers a person’s use of force, two factors are typically considered.

First, Cormier said, there is a subjective inquiry, in which the person using the self-defense argument has to believe someone is unlawfully entering their home or place of dwelling.

The second is an objective test of reasonability.

“That’s where the jury will look at the facts of the circumstances in totality and determine whether a reasonable person would believe that the level of force was necessary to stop or prevent the unlawful entry or attack at the person’s dwelling,” Cormier said.

“You can’t assert the doctrine if the person doesn’t subjectively believe it was necessary, but you can’t have a successful defense if, in an objective sense, a reasonable person would not have used that same level of force,” he said.

How Indiana’s law compares

Compared to states that strictly require a duty to retreat before using force, attorneys say Indiana’s stand your ground law offers more protection for defendants. However, Indiana’s law is not unique.

Over 30 states in the United States recognize, either by statutes or cases, that a person has no duty to retreat from a place in which they have a lawful right to be at, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This includes Indiana’s neighbors in Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky.

“We’ve been fairly forward leaning, Midwestern states and southern states, about making stand your ground laws and castle doctrines very robust,” Keffer said.

Florida was the first to implement a specific stand your ground law in 2005. The state’s law offers similar protections on the use of force as Indiana, though Florida’s language specifies that residents also have a right to threaten the use of deadly or nondeadly force if they reasonably believe it’s necessary.

Florida’s law does not permit the use of force against a person who “has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling” that the defendant is in, such as an owner or lessee.

States such as Minnesota, however, require retreat from an attacker before the use of force. The Minnesota House of Representatives unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation earlier this year that would permit the use of force over a duty to retreat.

Whitestown shooting

The castle doctrine and Indiana’s stand your ground law have become a prominent point of discussion following the shooting of Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez, a woman who mistakenly arrived at the wrong house to clean it in a Whitestown neighborhood on Nov. 5.

The man accused of shooting her through his door was identified by the Boone County Prosecutor’s Office as Whitestown resident Curt Andersen, 62. He’s been charged with voluntary manslaughter.

During a press conference announcing the charge, Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood stated that, based on evidence gathered at the scene, Andersen’s actions are not protected under Indiana’s self-defense law.

Several pieces of evidence in the affidavit offer an idea as to how the prosecution could argue why the state’s self-defense law does not apply in this situation.

The affidavit states that Andersen’s front door was locked at both the handle and the deadbolt after the shooting. Evidence gathered at the scene also alludes to a lack of force used by the cleaners trying to enter the home.

“Specifically, the exterior of the front door had a layer of dust that was undisturbed,” according to the affidavit. “There were no handprints or any evidence of forceful contact with the structure of the door itself. Further, there was no evidence or scratches around the latch and/or door frame.”

Keffer offered insight into what Andersen’s defense team could potentially argue to prove the state’s stand your ground law covers their clients’ actions.

“They’re gonna be talking about things like the time, the fact that there was a playing with the lock, which indicates injury, versus a knock at the door. They’re gonna talk about fear for family, not expecting any visitors,” he said.

One point of debate that both Cormier and Keffer said will likely come up between the parties is when the use of force is justified under the law. The language of the law does not specify that a defendant needs to warn an intruder or call the police before using force.

“If the door had not been breached and the person had not tried to make some type of basic inquiry as to what was going on, then that’s going to be relevant to the reasonable-ness argument,” Cormier said.

Ultimately, a court must determine whether the defendant’s perception of that imminent danger is reasonable, a task Keffer said could be tricky for a jury.

“You now make a standard that can vary between communities and by facts, which is not necessarily a good, universal standard for society writ large, or state writ large, when you might have different communities within the state have differing views on what’s reasonable under those circumstances,” he said.

Keffer anticipates that the discovery process leading up to the trial will be long and arduous given how crucial the facts of the case are in their application to the stand your ground law, particularly the moment the gun was fired.

“They’re going to be looking at it from all different angles, in addition to not just the facts, but also how people should and do handle firearms,” he said.

The court set a $25,000 bond for Andersen during his first court appearance on Nov. 21. A surety bond was entered for him on Nov. 24, but Andersen will remain supervised as he awaits trial.

A jury trial date has been set for March 30, 2026.•