CBS News reported that the Arizona Court of Appeals has thrown out a 10-year manslaughter sentence after a three-judge panel found an AI-created video of the slain man was not reliable evidence at sentencing.
Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, 55, must be resentenced in the November 2021 shooting death of Christopher Pelkey, 37, in Chandler, a Phoenix suburb. The conviction itself stands. The fight now centers on what a judge may rely on when a dead victim appears to speak through artificial intelligence.
The panel said the footage did not record a real moment. It presented statements as if they came directly from Pelkey, when the words were built from his sister’s imaginings. That ruling puts fresh pressure on courts racing to handle deepfake-style material before rules catch up.
Authorities say Horcasitas fatally shot Pelkey during a road-rage encounter at a stoplight in Chandler in November 2021. Pelkey was unarmed. He had gotten out of his truck and walked toward Horcasitas’ vehicle. A gunshot also struck another vehicle, leading to an endangerment count.
Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter in Pelkey’s death and of endangerment. At the May 2025 sentencing hearing, nine of Pelkey’s family members and friends stood before Superior Court Judge Todd Lang and described the emotional devastation. Then the AI video played.
Stacey Wales, Pelkey’s sister, had raised the idea so her brother could “speak for himself” and so the judge would see him as a person. The family used voice recordings, videos, and pictures to re-create him. Wales later told the BBC the family built the video that way.
In the video played in court, the AI likeness addressed the defendant directly.
"To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances."
It continued in the same manufactured voice.
"In another life, we probably could have been friends."
And it added a line about faith.
"I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do."
Shortly before imposing the 10-year manslaughter sentence, Judge Lang said he “loved that AI.” He also said he felt Pelkey’s “obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today.” Lang did not say from the bench whether the video factored into the numerical sentence.
The Arizona Court of Appeals released its decision Wednesday. The three-judge panel ordered resentencing because the AI video was not reliable. The judges found it crossed the line, did not reflect actual events, and presented the statements as coming directly from the victim.
The panel put the problem in plain terms.
"Indeed, rather than document an event or recording a particular moment, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister."
That finding is the core of the reversal. The sentence is gone. A new sentencing hearing must follow.
Horcasitas’ appellate lawyer, Kristen Reller, argued that Judge Lang violated due process protections by relying on AI evidence. She told the appeals court her client had no meaningful opportunity to rebut the material in the video. She said the video does not disclose who wrote the words, was not backed by evidence that it accurately reflected Pelkey’s views, and carried “undue emotional weight.”
Reller also contended the footage conveyed an authenticity that would not exist if a family member had simply read the same words aloud. She said the judge weighed the AI statements in sentencing. Defense counsel did not object to the AI video when it was played.
Attorneys for the victims’ side, including Jessica Gattuso, told the appeals court the lower-court judge did not err. They said the footage was an accurate representation of Pelkey’s character. Prosecutors argued Lang did not consider the footage when he issued the punishment and that nothing in the video was inflammatory.
Family lawyers also pointed to court records stating Arizona law does not require victims to disclose statements they plan to make in court to prosecutors, defense attorneys, or the judge. Under that view, victims may speak before the court or submit written, audio, or video statements.
In a statement Thursday, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said its prosecutors knew the victim’s family would address the court during sentencing but were not aware of the nature of the presentation. Gattuso and Reller both declined to comment Thursday on the decision.
Wales expected an appeal. She said she was disappointed the AI video was cited as the reason the sentence fell. She framed the outcome as a rights imbalance.
"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?"
She also said the family is not done trying to be heard.
"We will continue to let his voice be heard in whatever allowable medium we can convey that through the court system."
AP photos dated Wednesday, May 7, 2025, show Pelkey’s Army dress uniform and photo at his mother’s home in Chandler, and Wales displaying her brother’s image.
Gary Marchant, a law professor at Arizona State University, said he understands why Pelkey’s family did it. He also warned that the technology could open the door to more AI-created evidence in courtrooms. He pointed to a New York case in which a man used an AI-created avatar to argue by video, and judges realized in seconds the man “didn’t exist at all.”
Marchant described the broader fear now moving through the bench and bar.
"There's a real concern among the judiciary and among lawyers that deepfake evidence will be increasingly used."
He added why the risk is so sharp.
"It's easy to create it and anyone can do it on a phone, and it could be incredibly influential because judges and juries, just like all of us, are used to believing what you see."
Investigators and courts still must sort several open questions. Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether lawyers or the court knew in advance that an AI-created video would be used. The video itself does not identify who wrote the scripted lines. No public results have detailed the full docket path or the exact resentencing calendar.
Horcasitas remains a convicted manslaughter defendant who also was convicted of endangerment. The appeals court did not erase those verdicts. It erased a sentence built in a hearing where an AI recreation of the dead man offered forgiveness and friendship that no living witness could cross-examine as Pelkey’s own words.
At the new sentencing, the court will need to determine what victim-impact material stays inside lawful bounds. Judges will need clear rules on synthetic voices and faces. Prosecutors will need to know what is coming. Defense counsel will need a real chance to test it. Families will still seek to humanize the person who cannot walk into court.
The May 2025 hearing already showed how fast the technology outran the comfort level of the system. A judge said he loved the AI. An appeals panel said the same video was unreliable and required a do-over. That clash is now the live issue in Arizona’s courts.
When machines can put words in a dead man’s mouth, the courtroom either polices the boundary or watches due process turn into theater. Law-and-order justice demands the real record, not a digital ghost the other side cannot fairly answer.
