STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE HARRIS PATTERSON, III - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE HARRIS PATTERSON, III

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 27, 2026

Head Comment: CORRECTION: 1. On page 16, fourth paragraph, language added: “prior to trial, counsel for Defendant orally informed the trial court that he would object to the introduction of Poster Seven on the basis of relevance and its prejudicial nature because the jury may look at it and use the law on the poster instead of the statute for which Defendant was on trial." "The State argued that the poster was relevant. The trial court determined it was relevant and overruled the objection, commenting “if everybody is discussing it, why shouldn’t we know what it is?”" 2. On page 17, the second paragraph was removed and replaced with: “We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions under an abuse of discretion standard and will reverse the decision only if “the court applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning” and admission or exclusion of the evidence “caused an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting Poster Seven as an exhibit. The poster was relevant where Defendant repeatedly inquired about its location and engaged in discussions with various postal employees about their failure to display the poster at the post office. While Poster Seven had a section regarding disturbances, the trial court informed Defendant that it would tell the jury the law, removing the potential for prejudice from the admission of the poster as an exhibit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion."

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Ellison M. Berryhill (on appeal); Kaylee Ann Kohlmaier and Jonathan F. Wing (at trial), Assistant Public Defenders, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, George Harris Patterson, III.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Derick Blakely, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): EASTER

Defendant, George Harris Patterson, III, who was described at oral argument as a First Amendment Auditor, was indicted for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assault on a first responder after an incident at a Davidson County Post Office. A jury found Defendant not guilty of resisting arrest but guilty of disorderly conduct and assault. Defendant appeals, raising several issues. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the disorderly conduct statute under the First Amendment as applied to him, the trial court’s failure to give a special jury instruction, the trial court’s admission of a piece of evidence and testimony from a postal employee, and the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial. He also insists he is entitled to cumulative error relief. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: