Can a Family Use an AI Video of the Victim at Sentencing?

In Arizona, a published appeals court opinion says no, at least for a video like the one in that case. On September 30, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a judge should not have relied on an AI-generated video that put invented words in a homicide victim's mouth at sentencing. Families can still speak, read the victim's own writing, and share real recordings of the victim, with the judge keeping control of what comes in. The ruling binds Arizona trial courts only.

What happened at the sentencing in State v. Horcasitas?

The case began with a road-rage shooting. The defendant, Gabriel Horcasitas, repeatedly honked his horn at a red light. The driver ahead of him got out of his truck, raised his arms, and walked toward Horcasitas's car, and within seconds Horcasitas shot and killed him. A jury rejected his self-defense claim and convicted him of manslaughter. The trouble came later, at the sentencing hearing.

Many friends and relatives of the victim spoke that day. His brother read a long statement the victim had written himself, in the victim's actual words, about his beliefs, values, and hopes. Then his sister spoke and asked what he would have said if he could have taken her place. After that, an AI video was played. According to the opinion, the video used the victim's picture and "voice profile." It opened with the AI version of him explaining that it was recreated through AI, played a real clip of him talking about his faith, and then said the video "is a true representation of who [he] was . . . not how the courtroom portrayed [him]." Speaking to the defendant, it said, "I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives."

The family's lawyer asked for the maximum sentence. The prosecutor asked for 9 years, a slightly mitigated term, and the defense asked for 7. The judge told the family, "I loved that AI," said "I feel that that was genuine," and imposed the presumptive 10.5 years, adding, "That's more than the State asked for." The State had alleged no aggravating factors, so 10.5 years was the most the law allowed in this case. You can read the whole decision on the court's own website.

Why did the appeals court say the AI video crossed the line?

The court found the video unreliable, and sentencing requires reliable information. It noted that no Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence, and it looked to an earlier Arizona Supreme Court case, State v. Rose, as its guide. In Rose, photographs of a victim's young sons at his gravesite came "uncomfortably close" to the line between permissible and unduly prejudicial, but the supreme court found no error, reasoning that the boys' devastating loss was evident even without the photos. The appeals court contrasted those photos, which captured a real and poignant moment, with the AI video.

The AI video was different in two ways. First, apart from the real clips embedded in it, it "does not reflect actual events." The court said it presented the victim's thoughts "created from the imaginings of the victim's sister." Second, even with the explanation at the start, it presented the message, including facial expressions, as coming directly from the victim. In the court's words, it "erases the interpretive distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice and opinions." The court added, "No disclaimer could cure that error."

The court also pointed to the judge's own comments. The record did not show exactly how the video figured into the sentence, but the court wrote that "there is no question it played a role."

Why did the defendant win if the video forgave him?

The video spoke of forgiveness, yet the defendant is the one who got relief, because the legal problem was reliability and not which side the video seemed to favor. Under Arizona law, a defendant has a due process right to a fair sentencing procedure, including the right to be sentenced on accurate information, and a judge may consider only evidence with "minimal indicia of reliability."

Here the forgiveness did not come from the victim. It came from a computer-built version of him, scripted from what a family member believed he would say, and the judge treated it as the victim speaking "from his heart." The judge pointed to the "obvious forgiveness" in the video when explaining his decision. The appeals court's point was that a sentencing judge should not rely on a simulated statement that the victim never actually made.

What is fundamental error, and why did it matter here?

Fundamental error is a mistake serious enough that an appeals court may correct it even though no one objected in the trial court. When no one objects, the appeals court looks only for this kind of error, which is a narrower review. The opinion cites an earlier case saying that when a defendant has been denied an essential component of due process, that denial is fundamental error. The court also asked whether the error prejudiced the defendant.

Horcasitas did not object when the video was played, so the court reviewed only for fundamental error. It found it. Allowing the AI video was fundamental error, and, on this record, the judge's consideration of it "so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair." Our guide to how a criminal appeal works explains the appeal process in more detail.

What can a family still do in a victim impact statement?

Families can still do a great deal. Arizona's constitution gives victims the right to "be heard at any proceeding involving . . . sentencing," and a state statute lets them address the court with their opinions about the sentence. The opinion notes that victims do not appear as witnesses at sentencing, so they are not required to share their statements in advance, take an oath, or face cross-examination. The court also stressed that this right "is not unlimited," because it cannot override the defendant's right to due process.

The defendant challenged only the AI video, and the court did not fault the rest of this very hearing: family and friends describing the victim and the pain of the loss, and the brother reading the victim's own written statement. It expressly called the real video footage of the victim "permissible." Based on that, here is a practical approach for a family preparing a statement in an Arizona case:

1. Contact the prosecutor's office early and ask whether a victim advocate can help you prepare. Our overview of victim impact statements and sentencing covers the general process.
2. Gather real material: the victim's own letters, journals, photos, and recordings in which he or she actually speaks.
3. Speak in your own voice. If you want to share what you believe your loved one would have said, say plainly that it is your belief and your words.
4. Before the hearing, ask whether any edited or computer-generated media is allowed. Do not assume a judge will accept it, and do not count on a label or disclaimer to fix a problem with the content.
5. Keep in mind that the judge can screen what comes in. The Arizona Supreme Court has encouraged judges to screen and, if necessary, limit a victim impact presentation that is so unduly prejudicial it makes the proceeding fundamentally unfair.

The opinion does not create new procedures for any of this, and local court practices may add requirements. Ask the prosecutor's office what applies to your hearing.

What should a defendant or defense lawyer take from this ruling?

The main practical lesson is to object when the material is offered. Because no one objected here, the defendant could win only by clearing the fundamental error bar, a narrower form of review. A timely objection gives the judge a chance to exclude or limit the media and keeps the argument alive for appeal.

The ruling also restates a basic point about sentencing. The strict trial rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing, and an Arizona criminal procedure rule lets parties introduce "any reliable, relevant evidence, including hearsay." But the court emphasized that this relaxation "is not unlimited," and that only evidence with "minimal indicia of reliability" may be considered. A defendant has the right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information.

The limits matter as well. The court did not say victim impact evidence is suspect in general, and it left the real video clips alone. The sentence was vacated because of one specific item that was not reliable. For background on the hearing itself, see what happens at a sentencing hearing.

What did the ruling not decide?

It decided less than a quick summary might suggest. A few points are worth keeping straight:

• The conviction stands. The court affirmed the manslaughter conviction and rejected the defendant's separate argument about text messages from the victim's phone that the trial court had excluded.
• No new sentence was set. The court vacated the manslaughter sentence and sent the case back for resentencing, which means a new sentencing hearing. The opinion does not say what the new sentence should be.
• The court's order vacated the manslaughter sentence only. The opinion mentions a separate, concurrent 2.25-year sentence on an endangerment count he had pleaded guilty to, but its order does not touch that sentence.
• The opinion says nothing about other uses of AI, such as enhanced photos or computer-made demonstrations at trial.

The case also leaves open how a court would treat variations on these facts. The court said no disclaimer could cure the error in this video, but it did not write a rule covering every possible version of AI media in a courtroom.

Does this ruling apply outside Arizona, and could it change?

The ruling is a published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, so it binds Arizona trial courts. It does not bind courts in other states or federal courts, and the court itself called the issue novel. Other courts may read its reasoning, but they are not required to follow it, and this article says nothing about what any other state allows.

Federal courts have their own framework. The Crime Victims' Rights Act gives victims "the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding," according to the official text of 18 U.S.C. 3771. That provision says nothing about AI-generated media, and this Arizona decision does not govern federal sentencing.

In Arizona, the decision could still be reviewed. A party can ask the Arizona Supreme Court to take up the case, and as of mid-October 2026 we found no report that anyone had. The trial court must also hold the new sentencing hearing, and we cannot say what it will decide. The conviction here was for manslaughter, which differs from murder, as explained in our article on murder versus manslaughter.

This article is general legal information based on one court opinion and is not legal advice. If you have a case coming up, a lawyer, legal aid office, or court self-help center can tell you how the rules apply to you.