Read the complete article from ABC News, Cleaning Worker who mistakenly went to wrong home fatally shot:  Police

According to the article, a 32-year-old woman who was part of a cleaning crew was fatally shot at an Indiana home after the workers mistakenly went to the wrong address.

The shooting occurred recently in a subdivision of Whitestown, located approximately 20 miles northwest of Indianapolis.

Officers responding to a 911 call reporting a possible home invasion shortly before 7:00 a.m. found the woman dead on the front porch of the residence with a gunshot wound.

Gun Fired from Inside Home

The gun had been fired from inside the home, according to Whitestown Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Captain John Jurkash.

"It was later determined that the individuals attempting to enter the home were members of a cleaning crew who had mistakenly arrived at the wrong address," the Whitestown Metropolitan Police Department said in a statement, adding that "the facts gathered do not support" that a home invasion occurred.

The Shooting Victim

The Boone County Coroner's Office identified the shooting victim on Thursday as 32-year-old Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez of Indianapolis. She died from a gunshot wound to the head.

The Victim’s Husband Responds

Velasquez's husband told the media that they had been cleaning homes for seven months and he was with her when she was shot.  

"I never thought it was a shot, but I realized when my wife took two steps back, she looked like she'd been hit in the head."

"She fell into my arms, and I saw the blood. It went everywhere."

The couple has four children. The youngest child is 11 months old.

According to Mr. Velasquez, "What I need now is for there to be justice, because he took her life…I don't believe that's human.

Investigation Remains Ongoing

Jurkash told reporters that detectives are working to "unravel what exactly happened and if applicable what charges there would be."

The police department said it has formally submitted the case to the Boone County Prosecutor's Office for review.

The Boone County prosecutor, Kent Eastwood, recently said that his office hopes to be able to make any charging decision as soon as possible after a "thorough investigation" by the police department.

The shot was fired from inside the house by one of the residents, according to Jurkash. No further details on the shooter have been released by police.

The police department said it has not released the name of the homeowner due to the "complex, delicate and evolving case," and that "it would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous to disclose that information."

The police department also confirmed that a police officer does not reside at or have any personal connection to the residence, following what it said is "false and misleading information circulating on social media, suggesting that a local police officer resides at the home where the incident occurred."

Discussion Questions

  1. Review the article (“Homeowner Liability: Invitees, Licensees, and Trespassers”) included in Teaching Tip 1 of this newsletter. Based on your review of this article, in terms of premises liability of homeowners, was Maria Velasquez an invitee, licensee, or trespasser at the subject home? What duty, if any, did the homeowner owe Mrs. Velasquez?

    Based on the evidence presented in this article, when Mrs. Velaquez was fatally shot, she was a trespasser. A trespasser is an individual who is on property without either the invitation or permission of the landowner. One must be mindful, however, of the fact that even a trespasser is owed a duty by the landowner, and that duty is to not commit intentional bodily harm to them merely for the purpose of defending property. To use deadly force legally, the landowner must reasonably fear for their own personal safety, or the safety of others who are on the property (e.g., family members).

  2. As indicated in the article, according to Whitestown Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Captain John Jurkash, the homeowner fired the gun from inside the home. Additionally, officers responding to a 911 call found Mrs. Velasquez dead on the front porch of the residence with a gunshot wound. What relevance, if any, does this evidence have in terms of any duty the homeowner owed Mrs. Velasquez, and whether such duty was breached?
    This is most certainly relevant evidence, and it may result in the homeowner being found civilly and/or criminally responsible for Mrs. Velasquez’s death. If the homeowner was indeed inside the house when the gun was fired, and Mrs. Velazquez was on the front porch, that might cause a jury to conclude that the homeowner did not reasonably fear for their own personal safety. Mrs. Velasquez may have been brandishing a vacuum cleaner or other cleaning materials, but she was not brandishing a gun; given that reality, how can the homeowner convincingly argue that they were reasonably in fear for their own personal safety?

  3. Review Indiana Code Title 34, Section 31-11-3 included in Teaching Tip 1 of this newsletter. Note that in addition to establishing a minimal duty landowners owe to trespassers, the statute also establishes a heightened duty owed to child trespassers (In the subject case, Ms. Velasquez was not a child trespasser). Describe this duty. Why would Indiana (and other states) mandate a higher duty owed to child trespassers?

    As indicated in the subject Indiana statute: 
    “(A) possessor of land may be subject to liability for physical injury or death to a child trespasser if all…the following apply:
    (1) The structure or condition complained of is maintained or permitted on the property by the possessor.
    (2) The structure or condition is particularly dangerous to children.
    (3) The danger is latent, uncommon to nature, and unlikely to be comprehended by children.
    (4) The structure or condition is particularly attractive to children and provides a special enticement for children to play or sport on the structure or condition.
    (5) The possessor has actual or constructive knowledge of both the structure or condition and the likelihood that children will trespass and be injured.
    (6) The injury is a natural, probable, and foreseeable result of the wrong.

    This is a statutory incorporation of the common law “attractive nuisance” doctrine, which means that even if a child is a trespasser, the landowner has a reasonable obligation to keep their property safe for the child. The attractive nuisance doctrine represents the belief that it “takes a village,” in addition to immediate family members, to raise a child.