On August 12, 2020, Christopher Nguyen, a former Baltimore Police Department officer, responded to a report of two men fighting in a residential neighborhood in Northeast Baltimore. Upon arrival, Nguyen observed Wayne Brown lying semi-conscious and bloodied on the sidewalk near a gold Lincoln sedan, while Kenneth Somers sat in his pickup truck talking on his cell phone. Nguyen called for medical assistance for Brown and began questioning Somers, who admitted to assaulting Brown for allegedly stealing his car. During the interaction, Somers suddenly approached Brown, taunted him, and without warning kicked him in the head. Nguyen, who was standing nearby, reacted by placing a hand on Somers’s chest and telling him to stop. Another officer, Franklin Phipps, arrived shortly after and assisted in arresting Somers.
The State of Maryland charged Nguyen with reckless endangerment, arguing that he had a duty to protect Brown from Somers’ assault. At trial, the State introduced body-worn camera footage and testimony from three police officers, including Detective Vanessa Simpson, who acknowledged that Nguyen had a duty to protect Brown based on police policy, but also testified that Somers’ kick was unexpected. Phipps and Sergeant Charles Jones similarly expressed surprise at Somers’ actions, with Phipps stating that people typically do not assault others in the presence of police. Nguyen testified that he was overwhelmed by his lack of experience and did not anticipate Somers’ assault. The trial court convicted Nguyen, finding that he had a duty to protect Brown and that his failure to act constituted a gross departure from the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable officer. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the conviction, holding that Nguyen had a duty to protect Brown enforceable in a criminal proceeding, citing the public duty doctrine.
However, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed, emphasizing that the State failed to prove Nguyen had a legal duty to act under the circumstances. The Court noted that the common law did not impose a duty on police officers to protect members of the public from spontaneous, unforeseeable assaults by third parties absent a special relationship, such as custody. The Court rejected the State’s argument that Baltimore Police Department policies created such a duty, describing the policies as “broadly phrased” and insufficient to establish a legal obligation in this context. The Court also dismissed the State’s claim that a special relationship existed between Nguyen and Brown, as Brown was never in Nguyen’s custody.
The Court distinguished between duties owed to the public and those owed to specific individuals, noting that the public duty doctrine allows for criminal prosecution of breaches of public duties but does not create a duty in every circumstance. The Court underscored that foreseeability is critical in determining whether a duty exists, and here, all witnesses testified that Somers’s assault was unexpected. The Court concluded that the State did not meet its burden of proving Nguyen had a duty to act, and thus, it did not address whether Nguyen’s conduct constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care.
Christopher Nguyen v. State, 2025 Md. LEXIS 304 *.