A man from Arizona has had his 10-year manslaughter sentence overturned. Social media is buzzing about one aspect of the case: an AI video featuring the deceased victim, which was presented before the sentencing of Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, who was convicted for the 2021 shooting death of Christopher Pelkey.

RELATED: Christa Pike Reportedly Unconscious And On A Ventilator Following Botched Execution In Tennessee (UPDATE)

What Happened With The Arizona Case & An AI Video?

In a ruling released on Wednesday (Sept. 30), the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that Horcasitas must be resentenced for the shooting death because the AI video was deemed unreliable. The court found that the video did not accurately reflect actual events and presented statements made in the footage as if they originated directly from the victim.

“Indeed, rather than document an event or record a particular moment, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister,” stated the three-judge panel.

Jessica Gattuso, an attorney representing victims in this case, and Kristen Reller, Horcasitas’ lawyer, declined to comment on Thursday regarding the decision. Reller argued that Superior Court Judge Todd Lang violated due process protections by relying on AI evidence. Gattuso and prosecutors asserted to the appeals court that the lower-court judge acted correctly, claiming that the footage accurately represented Pelkey’s character.
In what is believed to be a first in U.S. courts, Pelkey’s family utilized AI to create a video of his likeness to give him a voice. Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, suggested her brother speaking for himself after struggling to determine what he would say.
Wales anticipated an appeal regarding the sentence and expressed disappointment that the AI video was cited as a reason, stating her only goal was to humanize her brother for the judge. “It feels unfair because there is a convicted murderer sitting in prison that has blankets and walls of protection around their rights. Where are the rights for the victim?” Wales expressed.
A victim appeals lawyer has informed the family that using AI again could lead to another appeal. “We will continue to let his voice be heard in whatever allowable medium we can convey that through the court system,” Wales added.
The AI-generated victim impact statement was presented during a May 2025 sentencing hearing after nine of Pelkey’s family members and friends addressed the judge about how emotionally devastated they were by his killing.
Authorities report that Horcasitas, 55, fatally shot Pelkey, 37, during a road rage incident at a stoplight in Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix. Pelkey, who was unarmed, was shot after exiting his truck and approaching Horcasitas’ vehicle.
Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter in Pelkey’s death and endangerment for a gunshot that struck another vehicle at the intersection during this encounter.
The AI rendering of Pelkey expressed his wish to still be with his friends and family, voiced beliefs in forgiveness, and lamented that it was unfortunate Horcasitas had encountered him because “in another life, we probably could have been friends.” The video did not request a specific prison sentence.
Horcasitas’ appellate lawyer contended that her client did not have a meaningful opportunity to rebut material presented in the AI-generated video.
It remains unclear whether attorneys or the court were aware beforehand that an AI-generated video would be utilized. However, attorneys representing Pelkey’s family noted in court records that Arizona law does not require victims to disclose statements they intend to make in court to prosecutors, defense attorneys, or judges — allowing victims to exercise their rights by addressing the court or submitting written or recorded statements.
In a statement released Thursday, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office indicated its prosecutors were aware that the victim’s family would address the court during sentencing but were not informed about its nature.
While AI usage within the court system is expanding, it has typically been reserved for administrative tasks, legal research, and case preparation. In Arizona, it has helped inform the public about rulings in significant cases.
However, using AI to generate victim impact statements represents a new tool for conveying information to the court outside evidentiary phases.
Reller argued before the appeals court that the video did not clarify who authored the words used by the AI version of Pelkey and lacked evidence supporting that its contents accurately reflected Pelkey’s views. It also carried an “undue emotional weight” and conveyed an authenticity absent if a family member had read those same words aloud, Reller stated.
Horcasitas’ lawyer maintained that the judge considered statements made in the AI-generated video when determining a sentence; however, prosecutors contended Lang did not factor in this footage when delivering punishment.
Just before announcing his sentence, Judge Lang remarked that he “loved that AI” but did not indicate from the bench whether this video influenced his decision. Lang stated he felt Pelkey’s “obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today.”
The family’s lawyers argue that prior to playing the AI video, Judge Lang was already inundated with relevant information from Pelkey’s family and friends — asserting nothing in this video was inflammatory. Horcasitas’ attorney did not object to using the AI video.

RELATED: Twin FR! BroRilla’s Viral AI Video Has Fans Hoping She & GloRilla Can Squash Their Beef (WATCH)

Associated Press writers Jacques Billeaud and Mikella Schuettler contributed to this report via AP Newsroom.