An Arizona appeals court has thrown out the prison sentence of a man convicted in a 2021 road rage shooting, ruling that the judge who sentenced him should not have relied on an artificial intelligence-generated video in which the victim appeared to address the courtroom and forgive him.
In a decision released Sept. 30, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld Gabriel Paul Horcasitas’ manslaughter conviction but vacated his 10½-year sentence for that offense and ordered a new sentencing hearing. The judges found that the AI video was unreliable and that its use made the original hearing fundamentally unfair.
Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter in the Nov. 13, 2021, shooting death of Christopher Pelkey, 37, at a stoplight in Chandler, a Phoenix suburb. Authorities said Pelkey, who was unarmed, had gotten out of his truck and was walking toward Horcasitas’ car when he was shot. Horcasitas was also convicted of endangerment because one of his shots hit another vehicle at the intersection.
A digital likeness in the courtroom
At the May 2025 sentencing, Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, presented a video that drew on his photos and voice to build an AI version of him. The digital Pelkey spoke of his belief in forgiveness and told Horcasitas that in another life the two men might have been friends. The Associated Press reported that it was believed to be the first time such a video had been used in a U.S. court.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang praised the presentation from the bench, saying he “loved that AI” and that it felt genuine, before imposing the maximum sentence, NBC News reported. The defense had asked for the minimum, and the term Lang imposed was longer than prosecutors had sought, KTAR News reported.
On appeal, Horcasitas’ attorney, Kristen Reller, argued that the video carried undue emotional weight, did not disclose who wrote its words and gave her client no real opportunity to respond. Prosecutors argued the video fairly represented what Wales believed her brother would have told the court, and that it matched his own written statements about his values.
What the court said
The panel concluded the video crossed a line because it did not record anything Pelkey actually said or did. Instead, the judges wrote, it offered “a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister.”
The panel did not fault the family for speaking. Arizona’s constitution guarantees crime victims a voice at sentencing, and genuine footage of Pelkey that appeared in the video was permissible, KTAR News reported. The problem, the judges said, was the AI-generated portion, which lacked the reliability required of anything a judge weighs in setting punishment. “While the record does not reflect precisely how the AI video factored into the sentencing calculus, there is no question it played a role,” Judge D. Steven Williams wrote in the decision.
Horcasitas’ lawyer at the time did not object to the video, but the panel concluded that allowing it amounted to fundamental error. The ruling noted that no earlier Arizona case had addressed whether an AI-generated depiction of a victim could be offered as victim impact evidence.
Prosecutors with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office knew the family intended to speak at the hearing but were unaware of the format, the office said, according to the AP.
Family plans to speak again
Wales told FOX 10 Phoenix the family was disappointed by the decision but would take part in a new sentencing hearing. She has said the video was drawn from her brother’s own social media posts and writings. Wales told the AP the family would keep trying to have Pelkey’s voice heard in whatever form the courts allow, though a victims’ appellate lawyer has cautioned that using AI again could invite another appeal.
Reller and Jessica Gattuso, an attorney who represented the victim’s family, declined to comment, the AP reported.
What’s next
The ruling did not say when the new sentencing hearing will take place, and Horcasitas’ manslaughter conviction stands. Courts have increasingly used AI for administrative work and legal research, but using it to create victim impact statements is new territory, the AP noted.
