Arizona appeals court throws out manslaughter sentence after AI video put victim’s words before judge

An Arizona appeals court has thrown out a 10-year manslaughter sentence in a closely watched case after finding that an AI-generated video portraying the deceased victim speaking at sentencing was not reliable. The ruling means Gabriel Paul Horcasitas must be resentenced in the 2021 shooting death of Christopher Pelkey, though his conviction remains in place.

The case has drawn attention because it appears to be among the first in the United States in which a family used artificial intelligence to create a victim impact statement for court. Pelkey’s relatives presented the video during a May 2025 sentencing hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, alongside statements from nine family members and friends who described the emotional toll of his death.

Pelkey, 37, was killed in a November 2021 road rage encounter at a Chandler stoplight, where prosecutors said he was shot after getting out of his truck and walking toward Horcasitas’ vehicle. Horcasitas, who was convicted of manslaughter and endangerment, had been sentenced to 10 years in prison. The appeals court said the AI version of Pelkey crossed the line because it presented made-up speech as if it came directly from the victim.

Court says the video carried undue weight

In its decision, the court said the video did not document an actual event and instead reflected words created from the imagination of Pelkey’s sister. The panel said that distinction mattered because sentencing evidence must be reliable, and it concluded the synthetic video could not be treated the same way as a recorded statement from the victim himself.

The judges also pointed to the effect the video appeared to have on the sentencing court. According to the opinion, the superior court judge said he “loved” the video and viewed it as genuine, language the appellate panel cited in finding that the AI presentation had influenced the outcome. Horcasitas’ lawyer had argued that the defense had no meaningful chance to challenge the material because the words, authorship and authenticity of the video were not established.

Pelkey’s family has said the video was meant to humanize him and reflect forgiveness, not to manipulate the sentence. In the synthetic presentation, Pelkey was depicted saying he wished he could still be with friends and family and that he believed Horcasitas could be forgiven. The family’s lawyers have also argued that Arizona law allows victims to speak or submit written, audio or video statements without disclosing them in advance.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said prosecutors knew the family would address the court, but did not know the nature of the presentation. The appeals decision leaves open a broader question courts are likely to confront more often as generative AI tools move into legal settings: how to distinguish a permissible victim statement from a synthetic reconstruction that may shape a judge’s view of a sentence.