According to the article, Manslaughter sentence tossed after AI video of slain man shown in court, an Arizona appeals court has thrown out a manslaughter sentence in which a video generated by artificial intelligence (AI) portrayed the slain man forgiving his killer before a judgment was rendered.

Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, 55, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a November 2021 road rage incident in which he shot and killed Christopher Pelkey, 37.

In a recent decision, a three-judge panel in the Arizona Court of Appeals tossed Horcasitas’ sentence because the AI-generated video featuring an avatar in Pelkey’s likeness and voice that was played in court before a judge during his May 2025 sentencing hearing “crossed” a line.

What the AI Avatar Said

The video was created by the victim’s sister, Stacey Wales, and portrayed her slain brother speaking about forgiveness.

“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the AI version of Pelkey reportedly said in court. “In another life, we probably could have been friends.”

“I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do,” the avatar of Pelkey said.

Judge Todd Lang reportedly said he “loved that AI” before he issued his sentence.

While Lang didn’t indicate in court that the video was considered when he made his ruling, the judges delivering last week’s appellate decision said Lang’s “consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.”

The appellate judges ruled that Horcasitas must be resentenced.

Reaction to the Ruling

The killer’s lawyer, Kristen Reller, has declined to comment about the decision.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office also did not comment on the ruling but told the media that its prosecutors knew the victim’s family would be addressing the court during sentencing, “but were not aware of the nature of it.”

Wales told the media that she created the video using AI because she wanted to give her brother a chance to speak in court.

She also said she’s ready to head back to court for Horcasitas’ resentencing hearing and plans to read the script she wrote for the AI-generated video herself.

Discussion Questions

  1. Define manslaughter. Was manslaughter the appropriate charge in this case?

    Manslaughter is the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder. Murder is the unlawful and unjustifiable killing of one person by another, typically involving intent (malice aforethought) and distinguished from manslaughter by the presence of malicious intent.

    Based on the limited facts available from the article, your author is somewhat surprised that murder wasn’t the charge in this case. Even though a road-rage killing is typically spur-of-the-moment, courts have held that malice aforethought and malicious intent can be formed in seconds.

  2. As indicated in the article, in the presentencing hearing, an AI-generated video of the victim, Christopher Pelkey, was allowed to be played before the court as part of a victim impact statement. The AI video was prepared by the victim’s sister, Stacey Wales. According to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the video “crossed a line.” What is that line, and in your reasoned opinion, did Ms. Wales cross it? (For reference, please see the actual AI-generated video available via the link in Teaching Tip 1 of this newsletter.

    Perhaps the Arizona Court of Appeals was referring to a line of propriety and decorum? Whatever the case, there is no exact definition of what is proper and what is not, particularly since this was part of a victim impact statement. A victim impact statement is not considered evidence of guilt; instead, it is information for sentencing, and courts must consider it only after a defendant has been convicted.

    Had your author been the trial court judge in this case, I would have allowed the video, confident in knowing that ultimately, I (the judge) must make the final determination regarding the nature and terms of the sentence.

  3. What does this case portend for the use of AI in the courtroom?

    Although it is impossible to discern a trend based on one case, your author predicts that both federal and state court systems will be very measured in terms of admitting AI in the courtroom.

    This prediction is based on your author’s knowledge of previous examples where court systems have been reluctant to adopt new technology (e.g., computerized title searches), perhaps due to skepticism regarding the utility of the new technology and/or its cost.

    As the old saying goes, “(t)he wheels of justice move slowly,” and when it comes to the court systems’ embrace of new technology, the old saying most definitely applies.