You can certainly argue whether the relevant law is a good law or bad law, but it is what it is.
And the law appears to require that the accused actually do the killing, not that it simply happens. It seems to be “if they kill someone under circumstances that normally would not be murder, but it’s in the course of burglary, it’s counted as murder anyways”. I’d have to dig up the full statute and maybe research case law, but if the quoted section in the article is accurate, that’s what the law says. The murder charges never should have even reached a jury.
It’s up to the legislature to change such laws so that future incidents can be prosecuted as murder, not for the prosecutors to make shit up and the courts to let it fly.
I wonder about Indiana self defense law, too? True, in most jurisdictions you don’t have to flee your home, and I’m ok with that. The duty to flee should stop when you reach your home. But the perceived threats are themselves running and hiding, it’s hard to imagine the requirement of an actual threat or the employment of a proportional response was met here. Now, a lot of that depends on the homeowners perception- assuming they reasonably believe there’s such a threat and that lethal force is the only way to deal with it, they can be wrong about that and it would still count as self defense. Requiring objective truth in such situations risks forcing the insane choice of suicide by asshole or prison. Still, it sounds fishy to me.