Appeals court vacates manslaughter sentence over AI video

The appeals court affirmed Horcasitas’s manslaughter conviction and vacated the sentence imposed for that offense.[1] It remanded the case for resentencing after finding the AI video unreliable.[1] The panel also said the video should not have been allowed during sentencing.[2] The ruling therefore leaves the conviction affirmed while requiring the sentencing court to reconsider the manslaughter sentence.[1] The original manslaughter term was a presumptive 10.5 years.[1]

The appeals panel said the sentencing record confirmed that the AI video played a role, but did not show exactly how much it affected the sentence.[2] The appeals court nonetheless found the video unreliable and vacated the sentence.[1] For legal teams considering this ruling, the distinction matters: the court identified a role for the video without quantifying its influence, and ruled that it should not have been used at sentencing.[2]

The victim’s family made the AI video, which rendered Pelkey speaking to his family, the court and Horcasitas.[1][2] Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, scripted the message.[2] Wales said the aim was to humanize her brother, reach the judge and convey his impact and existence.[3] In the video, the AI version of Pelkey told Horcasitas that they might have been friends in another life.[2] Someone spoke in Maricopa County Superior Court on May 1.[3]

Before the appeal, Horcasitas argued that the AI video was unreliable and should not have been admitted; prosecutors defended its inclusion at sentencing.[2] The appeals court also rejected his claim that the trial court wrongly excluded text messages from Pelkey’s phone.[1] Alongside the presumptive 10.5-year manslaughter term, Horcasitas had received a concurrent presumptive 2.25-year sentence for endangerment.[1] The opinion was delivered by Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, joined by Judges Anni Hill Foster and David D. Weinzweig.[1]