The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Grant Alan West for armed robbery of a Columbia Falls pharmacy, rejecting his appeal in a decision issued Monday. The case, *State of Montana v. Grant Alan West* (2026 MT 13), involved a masked gunman who demanded controlled substances from Good Medicine Pharmacy employees before forcing them into a bathroom during his escape.
Justice Beth Baker delivered the opinion for the court in the case that originated in Flathead County District Court. West was convicted by a jury on charges of robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs following the incident at the Columbia Falls pharmacy.
According to court documents, a masked and armed individual entered Good Medicine Pharmacy and demanded a bottle of Percocet 10 from employees. The robber then forced three pharmacy workers to hide in the bathroom while he fled the scene. One of the pharmacy employees later identified West as the perpetrator, leading to his arrest and prosecution.
West's appeal raised three primary challenges to his conviction. First, he argued the District Court erred in denying his Brady motion when the State waited three days to disclose that a witness was hearing impaired. Brady motions relate to the prosecution's constitutional obligation to disclose material evidence favorable to the defense, established in *Brady v. Maryland* (1963).
Second, West challenged the sufficiency of evidence, arguing that no rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State established the essential elements of robbery. This type of challenge requires appellate courts to review whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support the conviction.
Third, West alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the State improperly introduced evidence during the trial. The record indicates this argument was cut off in the available court documents, suggesting additional details about the specific evidence in question.
The case was handled by Gregory D. Birdsong of Birdsong Law Office in Santa Fe, New Mexico, representing West on appeal. The State was represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General Mardell Ployhar, Flathead County Attorney Travis R. Ahner, and Deputy County Attorney John Donovan.
The appeal was submitted on briefs on Jan. 28, 2026, without oral arguments, and decided Feb. 3, 2026. This expedited timeline reflects the court's efficient handling of the criminal appeal, which originated from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in Flathead County under Judge Robert B. Allison.
The original charges against West included robbery, a felony involving taking property from another person through force or threat; aggravated kidnapping, which involves restraining someone under circumstances that increase the severity beyond simple kidnapping; and criminal possession of dangerous drugs, relating to controlled substances.
Pharmacy robberies have become an increasing concern for law enforcement as criminals target these businesses for prescription medications, particularly opioids like Percocet. Such crimes often involve multiple serious charges due to the combination of theft, weapons, and controlled substances.
West's conviction in Flathead County District Court required the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges. The identification by a pharmacy employee proved crucial to the prosecution's case, as eyewitness testimony often forms the foundation for robbery prosecutions when physical evidence may be limited.
The Brady issue raised on appeal reflects ongoing tensions in criminal law regarding the timing of evidence disclosure. Prosecutors must balance their obligation to share exculpatory evidence with practical considerations about when such information becomes available or relevant to the defense.
The sufficiency of evidence challenge is standard in criminal appeals, requiring courts to determine whether reasonable jurors could have reached the guilty verdict based on the evidence presented. Courts typically defer to jury verdicts unless the evidence is clearly insufficient as a matter of law.
The Montana Supreme Court's affirmance of West's conviction means his criminal penalties will stand, and his options for further appeal are limited to potential federal constitutional issues that might warrant review by the U.S. Supreme Court, though such review is discretionary and rarely granted.
This case demonstrates the Montana criminal justice system's handling of pharmacy-related crimes and the appellate process that ensures defendants receive appropriate review of their convictions while maintaining public safety through enforcement of robbery laws.