No charges will be brought forward for the fatal shooting of Richard Rolfe on October 16, 2025

Baltimore, Md. (November 3, 2025) – Today, the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City announced that it has completed its review of the October 16, 2025, fatal shooting of Richard Rolfe on the 2200 block of Fleet Street and concluded that charges will not be pursued. This announcement follows an in-depth review, per office policy, by the State’s Attorney’s Homicide Unit, and after notifying the victim’s family. 

“Based on the facts of this case, we believe that this shooting meets the requirements of self-defense in the State of Maryland. It is imperative that our office reviews shooting incidents in an unbiased and impartial manner as a part of our duty to deliver justice,” said State’s Attorney Ivan J. Bates. “ Regardless of what narrative is being communicated in the neighborhood and by media coverage, any family who loses a loved one to violence has the right to be thoroughly briefed by the prosecutor’s office before an announcement that charges will not be brought forward.” 

Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 4:17.2 indicates that defense of habitation, commonly known as “self-defense”, is a complete defense to homicide if all of the following five factors are present in this case:
(1) Richard Rolfe entered or attempted to enter the defendant’s home;
(2) the defendant actually believed that Richard Rolfe intended to commit a crime that would involve an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm;
(3) the defendant reasonably believed that Richard Rolfe intended to commit such a crime;
(4) the defendant believed that the force that he used against Richard Rolfe was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm; and
(5) the defendant reasonably believed that such force was necessary.

In order to charge and convict the defendant of a homicide, the State must show that the defense of one’s home does not apply in this case by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the five factors previously stated was absent.

Based on the investigation in this case, it can be said that the homeowner was acting appropriately under the defense of the habitation doctrine. While it was later determined that Mr. Rolfe did not have a gun, it is reasonable that the homeowner believed Mr. Rolfe was armed.