Mistaken Entry Turned Deadly in Indiana: What Stand‑Your‑Ground and the Castle Doctrine Mean

Indiana shooting renews debate over self‑defense laws

Maria Florinda Rios Perez De Velasquez was fatally shot after she mistakenly tried to enter the wrong Indiana home where she believed she was scheduled to clean. The homeowner fired as she attempted to step inside.

What happened and why prosecutors are reviewing it

The shooting has refocused attention on so‑called stand‑your‑ground statutes and the related castle doctrine. While Indiana law allows a person to use reasonable — even deadly — force to stop an unlawful attempt to enter their property, prosecutors say the specific facts of this case may put the homeowner’s conduct outside the statute’s protections.

Legal distinctions: castle doctrine vs. stand‑your‑ground

Castle doctrine generally means a homeowner need not retreat inside the house and may use lethal force to defend the dwelling itself. Many states have codified versions of this idea, with varying thresholds for when deadly force is permitted.

Stand‑your‑ground laws extend the removal of a duty to retreat to places outside the home. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has explained, these laws address whether someone who reasonably fears death or serious bodily injury can remain in place and use deadly force rather than safely retreating.

When deadly force is legally justified

Legal experts stress that deadly force is typically justified only when a person reasonably believes they face imminent death, serious bodily injury, or certain violent crimes (for example, rape or kidnapping). Statutory language and judicial interpretations differ across states, and those differences determine how cases are charged and adjudicated.

Variation across states and civil consequences

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports at least 31 states — plus Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands — have language recognizing no duty to retreat in places where a person is lawfully present. Eight states lack explicit stand‑your‑ground statutes but allow self‑defense claims through court decisions and jury instructions.

Civil liability protection also varies: at least 23 states shield individuals from civil suits by the person they used force against, while six states (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota and Tennessee) allow civil suits even when no criminal conviction occurs.

High‑profile cases illustrating the tensions

These doctrines have surfaced in several well‑known cases. Florida’s 2005 stand‑your‑ground law featured prominently in the George Zimmerman case after he shot Trayvon Martin in 2012. In Texas, jurors were allowed to consider the castle doctrine in the Amber Guyger case, although Guyger was ultimately convicted of murder for killing Botham Jean in 2018.

What to watch in the Indiana case

Key questions prosecutors and, eventually, courts will consider include whether the homeowner reasonably believed an unlawful entry was occurring and whether deadly force was proportionate and necessary given the circumstances. Because statutes and civil‑immunity rules differ widely by jurisdiction, similar incidents can lead to very different outcomes depending on local law and the specific facts.

Bottom line: Stand‑your‑ground and castle doctrine laws create important legal protections for self‑defense, but they are not blanket permissions to use deadly force. Facts matter — and so does the state law that applies.