Frison v. State

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: December 9, 2025

S25A1246. FRISON v. THE STATE.

PINSON, Justice.

Xaiver Frison shot and killed Arlontae Marks during an argu-

ment between Marks and Frison’s sister about Marks’ dog.1 At trial,

Frison claimed self-defense, relying mostly on testimony from Frison

and his sister that Marks had a gun, but surveillance footage showed

1 Marks was killed on November 10, 2022. In February 2023, a Fulton

County grand jury returned an indictment that charged Frison with malice
murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a felony. After a jury trial from August 28 to 31, 2023, Frison
was found guilty of all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison
for malice murder and a consecutive term of five years in prison for possession
of a firearm during the commission of a felony; the felony murder count was
vacated by operation of law and the aggravated assault count merged with the
malice murder count. Frison, through trial counsel, timely filed a motion for
new trial. He later changed counsel, and new counsel filed a brief in support of
the motion for new trial. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for
new trial on May 8, 2025, and Frison timely filed a notice of appeal. His appeal
was docketed to the August 2025 term of court and submitted for a decision on
the briefs.
otherwise. The jury convicted Frison of malice murder and posses-

sion of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, he

claims that his convictions should be reversed because the State

failed to disprove his claim of self-defense. For the reasons that fol-

low, that claim fails and his convictions are affirmed.

1. According to the evidence at trial, Frison’s sister, Calje Jor-

dan, had known Marks and his family since she was a teenager, and

she also knew Marks’ girlfriend, Kelsey Bearden. In July 2021, Jor-

dan began subletting her apartment to Bearden and Marks. In Sep-

tember 2022, Bearden and Marks stopped paying rent.

Some time later, Jordan tried to evict Marks and Bearden, and

in November of 2022, Bearden and Marks began moving out. But as

of November 9, 2022, many of their belongings — and their dog, Dilly

— remained. When Bearden and Marks returned to Jordan’s apart-

ment on the night of November 9, the locks had been changed, and

they had to get a locksmith to let them inside. Once inside, Marks

and Bearden found that Dilly and some of their belongings were

missing from the apartment.

2
As Bearden and Marks were leaving to go to their new home,

they ran into Jordan in the lobby. Bearden asked Jordan about Dilly,

but Jordan ignored her and kept walking to the elevator. Jordan

then returned to the lobby and gave Bearden paperwork that Jordan

said was a temporary protective order.2 Bearden and Marks left and

spent the night at their new home. They returned the next after-

noon.

The next day, Frison was visiting Jordan at her apartment. Ac-

cording to Jordan, Marks tried to kick in the door to the apartment.

While kicking the door, Marks said he was “going to put [Jordan]

with [her] brother that passed away and [her] fiancé that passed

away.” According to Frison, Marks “was cussing like, b***h where

my dog at.”3 This went on for “[a] little more than a minute,” and

Marks did not get inside the apartment. Jordan called the police.

From the apartment, Jordan saw that Marks and Bearden had

2 Bearden testified that police officers later told her that the temporary

protective order had not been served and that no eviction had been filed.
3 Frison testified that two days earlier, when he and Jordan were at the

apartment, Marks “started banging on the door.” They did not let Marks in,
and Jordan called the police. This was the first time Frison saw Marks.
3
blocked her car with Marks’ car. Jordan and Frison went outside to

Jordan’s car, and, according to Jordan, Marks and Bearden started

“running towards” her.

Jordan testified that Marks “pulled out his gun from his

pouch,” she told him to “put his gun up,” and then Marks began ar-

guing with Frison. Frison also testified that Marks “pulled a gun out

of his pouch, his purse, whatever that is” and Marks “seemed mad.”

Jordan testified that Marks “had his gun in his hand. He put it

away, then he took it back out. So he pulled his gun out three times.”

According to Jordan, Marks then started “[c]hasing” Jordan and

Frison as they walked to the lobby of the apartment building. Frison

testified that he and Jordan started “[b]acking away to the lobby”

while Marks still had his gun out. Jordan testified that Bearden was

yelling that she was “going to beat [Jordan’s] ass.” Frison testified

that he could not remember Marks’ exact words, just that he was

making threats and asking about his dog. Both Frison and Jordan

denied knowing what happened to Dilly, although Frison testified

4
that he had seen the dog at the apartment two days earlier.4

Frison testified that, as he moved to the lobby, Marks was “get-

ting aggressive” and seemed “really mad.” Inside the lobby, Frison

“kept backing back,” but then “turned to try to walk away.” When he

turned, he saw “out the corner of [his] eye” that Jordan had “pulled

out the gun,” so he “hurried up and grabbed the gun and blacked

out.” Frison testified that he remembered shooting Marks because

Frison “was scared.” But Frison said he did not remember how many

times he shot Marks or that he shot him in the back, only that he

“shot in fear.” Frison said he “closed [his] eyes” and “wasn’t looking”

when he shot at Marks, but he fired because he thought Marks was

going to shoot him and Jordan. Frison identified State’s Exhibit 47

as the gun he used to shoot Marks. He testified that he “normally

bring[s] a gun” with him.

Jordan testified that, after she and Frison ran back inside with

Marks and Bearden following, she took a gun out of her bag because

4 Jordan denied removing the dog from the apartment. Bearden testified

that she never learned what happened to Dilly.
5
Marks was “chasing [her] with a gun” but she did not know what

happened with the gun she took out of her bag. Jordan then testified

that Frison “rubbed against” her, and she thought he was the one

who fired the shots that she heard, but that she “blacked out” and

did not see who took the gun and fired the shots.

Bearden testified that she returned to the car as Marks, Frison,

and Jordan moved toward the apartment building because the argu-

ment “wasn’t heated anymore.” Bearden then heard gunshots, and

when she turned toward the building, she saw Marks “face forward

on the ground.”

After the shooting, Jordan and Frison ran because Jordan was

“scared” and Frison “thought one of them was going to shoot [him]

still.” Jordan and Frison were both detained and interviewed soon

after the shooting.

Someone called 911, and when officers arrived, Marks was un-

responsive. He had a handgun holstered in his waistband, which an

officer removed and secured.

Contrary to the testimony of Jordan and Frison, surveillance

6
footage of the incident, which was admitted into evidence and played

at trial, showed that Marks did not have anything in his hands and

did not gesture to the gun concealed at his waist at any point as he

walked to the apartment building behind Jordan and Frison. 5 Ac-

cording to Bearden, Marks “always” carried his gun, but it was con-

cealed under his shirt that day and she never saw him pull out the

gun and never heard him threaten to do so. Two people who worked

at the apartment complex testified that they saw the altercation and

heard Marks, Frison, and Jordan “yelling” that day, but neither of

the workers saw any weapons until one of them saw Jordan take a

gun out of her bag.

The medical examiner determined that Marks died from mul-

tiple gunshot wounds. In total, Marks suffered eight gunshot

wounds, including two to the back and two to the buttocks. The med-

ical examiner also observed “abrasions on the waist and upper thigh

that are consistent with shrapnel or blunt force trauma by hitting

5 On appeal, Frison concedes that Marks did not have a gun out during

the altercation.
7
something hard,” which could include falling on a gun.

Eight .40-caliber cartridge cases were collected from the crime

scene, and an expert in firearm comparison testified that all eight

were fired by the Glock pistol that Frison admitted he used to shoot

Marks. None of the cartridge cases matched the gun found holstered

at Marks’ waist, and that gun’s magazine was full.

2. Frison claims on appeal that the State failed to disprove his

self-defense theory beyond a reasonable doubt. We address that

claim as a sufficiency claim and review it under the standard set

forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307 (1979). See, e.g., Mills v.

State, 320 Ga. 457, 461 (2024). Under that standard, we assess

whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,

“‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 US

at 319). In making that assessment, we neither weigh the evidence

on appeal nor resolve conflicts in trial testimony. Instead, we “defer

to the jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evi-

dence.” Chambliss v. State, 318 Ga. 161, 163 (2023) (cleaned up). It

8
is the jury’s role to evaluate the evidence, and in doing so, the jury

is free to reject evidence that supports the defendant’s claim of self-

defense and credit evidence that he did not act in self-defense. See

Allen v. State, 322 Ga. 417, 422–23 (2025).

For a malice murder conviction, the State must prove that the

defendant acted with “malice, which incorporates the intent to kill.”

Scoggins v. State, 317 Ga. 832, 836 (2023); OCGA § 16-5-1(a). As for

self-defense, to justify the use of deadly force, a defendant must show

that he “reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] necessary to pre-

vent death or great bodily injury to himself” or to others. OCGA §

16-3-21(a). A homicide is not so justified “if the force used by the

defendant exceeds that which a reasonable person would believe was

necessary to defend against the victim’s unlawful act.” Nelson v.

State, 283 Ga. 119, 120 (2008). When a defendant raises a justifica-

tion defense at trial, the State has the burden of disproving that de-

fense beyond a reasonable doubt. Reese v. State, 317 Ga. 189, 196

(2023).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence

9
here authorized the jury to find that Frison intended to kill Marks

and to reject his claim of self-defense. Although Frison concedes on

appeal that Marks did not have a gun in his hand during the argu-

ment, both Frison and Jordan testified at trial that Marks had a

gun, notwithstanding the video evidence that showed he did not.

Given this clear contradiction between Jordan and Frison’s testi-

mony and the video evidence, the jury was authorized to disbelieve

this testimony in full and instead to view Frison’s testimony as sub-

stantive evidence of guilt. See Mims v. State, 310 Ga. 853, 855 (2021)

(defendant’s testimony “may itself be considered substantive evi-

dence of guilt when disbelieved by the jury, so long as some corrob-

orative evidence exists for the charged offense”). And ample evidence

authorized the jury to conclude that Frison could not have reasona-

bly believed that shooting Marks was necessary to defend himself or

Jordan. That evidence included Bearden’s testimony that the argu-

ment “wasn’t heated anymore” by the time the group went into the

apartment building; testimony and surveillance footage that showed

Marks never fired or even reached for the concealed weapon later

10
found in his waistband; and the evidence that Frison fired his gun

eight times and hit Marks eight times, including twice in the back

and twice in the buttocks. See Walker v. State, 312 Ga. 232, 235–36

(2021) (although it was undisputed that the victim had a gun at the

time of his encounter with the defendant, there was no evidence

other than the defendant’s testimony that the victim ever drew his

gun and no evidence that the victim ever fired the gun, so the jury

was authorized to reject defendant’s claim of self-defense); Mills, 320

Ga. at 461 (jury authorized to conclude defendant did not reasonably

believe that deadly force was necessary to defend himself and others

based on evidence that the victim did not have a gun and was al-

ready injured and on the ground when the defendant shot the victim

in the back multiple times). Because the evidence was sufficient for

the jury to reject Frison’s claim of self-defense, his claim on appeal

fails.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

11