I very much disagree with this ruling; the case which brought the question up is irrelevant because the State’s Supreme Court is violating due process (that is, the US Constitution via the 14th Amendment’s 1st section) and attempting to redefine the State’s own Constitution (thereby violating that State’s Constitution’s article regarding amendment).
A more complete argument here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2761352/posts
The Indiana statute specifically makes it a class I misdemeanor to commit a battery on a police officer who is engaged in the execution of the officer's OFFICIAL DUTIES. There is no Castle Doctrine defense in the statute so if you batter a police officer and the police officer can prove that at the time he was engaged in his OFFICIAL DUTIES, then you are going to be convicted. The common law "Castle Doctrine" does not apply.
Now if you could prove that the police officer was not engaged in his OFFICIAL duties, then the castle doctrine would apply and is not affected by this ruling.
The facts of this case are so bad, that there is simply no way the defendant was going to win. To even raise the "Castle Doctrine" on a case with these facts does nothing more than to draw unnecessary attention to the doctrine and thereby risk that the doctrine will be diluted merely by the fact that it forms the basis of this appeal.
Again, I have read the opinion of the court, and I am not in disagreement. There are remedies available to citizens for unlawful entry by police, but battery is not an option where the police officer is engaged in official duties.
In the facts of this case, there was no way for the defendant to show that the police were even acting illegally. There was no illegal entry. If you want to blame anyone for this ruling, blame the idiot attorney who raised the issue on appeal. Bad facts make bad law. The facts on this case couldn't have been worse.