Photo: gorodenkoff / iStock / Getty Images
An Arizona appeals court has overturned the sentence of Gabriel Paul Horcasitas after finding that an AI-generated video of his victim, Christopher Pelkey, played during sentencing, was a "fundamental error" that unfairly influenced the judge. The case has drawn national attention to the use of artificial intelligence in the courtroom and its potential to create bias.
Horcasitas, now 55, was convicted of manslaughter and endangerment for fatally shooting Pelkey, a 37-year-old U.S. Army veteran, during a road rage incident at a red light in 2021. In May 2025, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang gave Horcasitas the maximum sentence of 10 and a half years in prison, exceeding the prosecution's recommendation, after viewing the AI video made by Pelkey's family. The video featured a digital recreation of Pelkey, dressed in a grey baseball cap and green sweatshirt, directly addressing Horcasitas in court and expressing forgiveness, saying, "In another life, we probably could have been friends" and "I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do."
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the AI video, which was scripted by Pelkey's sister, "crossed that line" by presenting imagined thoughts as if they were the victim’s own, erasing the difference between family beliefs and the victim’s actual voice. The court stated, "The AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister," and found that its use prejudiced the sentencing, making the process "fundamentally unfair."
Judge Lang had praised the AI video, telling the family, "I loved that AI, thank you for that... I heard the forgiveness. I feel that that was genuine." However, the appeals court said that while it is unclear precisely how much the video affected the sentencing, "there is no question it played a role."
Following the ruling, Horcasitas will now be resentenced. There is currently no formal legal precedent in Arizona regarding the admissibility of AI-generated evidence in court proceedings. The decision is likely to influence future discussions about the use of AI technology in the justice system.