The Montana Supreme Court upheld the conviction of April Lee Ellis for obstructing a peace officer in a decision that has implications for how courts handle jury selection and judicial bias. The court ruled on October 27, 2026, in case number DA 25-0460, affirming the lower court's decision regarding Ellis's conviction.

Ellis's case stems from an incident in Great Falls where she was stopped by Officer Frank Torres for failing to yield at an intersection. After refusing to provide identification, she was arrested and charged with obstructing a peace officer and careless driving. The case has drawn attention due to Ellis's claims of judicial bias and improper jury selection.

Background

April Ellis, a resident of Belt, Montana, was the defendant in a case brought against her by the City of Great Falls. The dispute arose from a traffic stop initiated by Officer Frank Torres on June 5, 2023, after he observed Ellis's vehicle not yielding at a stop sign. Ellis was charged with obstructing a peace officer and careless driving. She argued that the stop was unlawful and that her rights were violated during the process.

The case first went to the Great Falls Municipal Court, where Ellis filed a motion to suppress evidence gathered during the traffic stop. She claimed that Officer Torres lacked the necessary suspicion to stop her vehicle. The Municipal Court denied her motion. Following this, Ellis was tried and found guilty of obstructing a peace officer while being acquitted of careless driving. She subsequently appealed her conviction to the Eighth Judicial District Court, which upheld the Municipal Court's decision.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the Montana Supreme Court, led by Justice James Jeremiah Shea, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Ellis's arguments regarding the denial of her motion to suppress were not properly preserved for appeal because she did not raise them in the district court. The court stated, "We do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal." This meant that her claims regarding the legality of the traffic stop were not considered.

Additionally, the court addressed Ellis's concerns about judicial bias. Ellis had requested the presiding judge, Ashley Wilkinson, to disqualify herself due to a potential conflict of interest related to a civil lawsuit involving the judge's family. The court ruled that Judge Wilkinson did not err in refusing to disqualify herself, stating that the reasons provided by Ellis did not substantiate a reasonable question of bias. The court noted that the alleged bias was based on a lawsuit that had already been settled and had no direct connection to Ellis's case.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases in Montana, particularly regarding the standards for judicial disqualification and jury selection. The court's decision reinforces the importance of following proper procedures when challenging a judge's impartiality. It also highlights the discretion judges have in determining juror bias. The ruling may affect how defendants approach similar challenges in future cases, emphasizing the need to adhere to established legal procedures.

Moreover, the court's affirmation of Ellis's conviction underlines the challenges defendants face when appealing decisions based on procedural grounds. The ruling serves as a reminder that failing to raise certain issues during the initial trial can limit a defendant's ability to contest those issues later.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Ellis plans to appeal this decision further. However, the ruling stands as the final determination in this case, affirming her conviction without setting new legal precedent.