An Arizona man’s 10-year manslaughter sentence has been thrown out in a case in which a video generated by artificial intelligence portrayed the deceased victim addressing the judge shortly before the punishment was imposed.

In a decision released Wednesday, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that Gabriel Paul Horcasitas must be resentenced in the 2021 shooting death of Christopher Pelkey because the AI video was not reliable.

The court found that the video crossed the line, saying it did not reflect actual events and presented statements in the footage as if they came directly from the victim.

“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,” the three-judge panel wrote.

Jessica Gattuso, an attorney who represented victims in the case, and Kristen Reller, Horcasitas’s lawyer, declined to comment on the decision Thursday.

Reller had argued that Superior Court Judge Todd Lang violated due process protections by relying on AI evidence. Gattuso and prosecutors told the appeals court that the lower-court judge did not err, saying the footage was an accurate representation of Pelkey’s character.

In what is believed to be a first in U.S. courts, Pelkey’s family used AI to create a video of his likeness to give him a voice. His sister, Stacey Wales, raised the idea of her brother speaking for himself after struggling to work out what he would say.

Wales said she expected an appeal of the sentence and was disappointed that the AI video was cited as the reason, adding that her only goal was to humanize her brother for the judge.

“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?” Wales said.

A victim appeals lawyer has told the family that using AI again could result in another appeal. “We will continue to let his voice be heard in whatever allowable medium we can convey that through the court system,” Wales said.

The AI-generated victim impact statement was played during a May 2025 sentencing hearing after nine of Pelkey’s family members and friends stood before the judge and described how emotionally devastated they were by his killing.

Authorities say Horcasitas, 55, fatally shot Pelkey, 37, during a November 2021 road rage encounter at a stoplight in Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix. Pelkey, who was unarmed, was shot after getting out of his truck and walking toward Horcasitas’s vehicle.

Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter in Pelkey’s death and of endangerment for a gunshot that struck another vehicle at the intersection during the encounter.

The AI rendering of Pelkey said he wished he could still be with his friends and family, voiced a belief in forgiveness, and said it was a shame Horcasitas had encountered him because “in another life, we probably could have been friends.” The video did not request a specific prison sentence.

Horcasitas’s appellate lawyer argued that her client had no meaningful opportunity to rebut the material in the AI-generated video. It is not clear whether the attorneys or the court knew in advance that an AI-generated video would be used. Attorneys representing Pelkey’s family said in court records, however, that Arizona law does not require victims to disclose statements they plan to make in court to prosecutors, defense attorneys, or the judge — and that victims can exercise their rights by speaking before the court or submitting statements that are written or recorded on audio or video.

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.

The use of AI within the court system has been expanding, though it has typically been reserved for administrative tasks, legal research, and case preparation. In Arizona, it has helped inform the public of rulings in significant cases. Using AI to generate victim impact statements, however, marks a new tool for sharing information with the court outside the evidentiary phases.

Reller told the appeals court that the video did not disclose who wrote the words used by the AI version of Pelkey and was not backed by evidence establishing that its contents accurately reflected his views. The video also carried an “undue emotional weight” and conveyed an authenticity that would not have existed had a family member read the same words aloud, she said.

Horcasitas’s lawyer contended that the judge weighed the statements made in the AI-generated video when deciding on a sentence, but prosecutors argued that Lang did not consider the footage when issuing the punishment. Shortly before delivering the sentence, the judge commented that he “loved that AI” but did not say from the bench whether the video factored into his decision. Lang said he felt Pelkey’s “obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today.”

The family’s lawyers said the judge was already inundated with relevant information from Pelkey’s family and friends before the AI video was played, and that nothing in the video was inflammatory. Horcasitas’s attorney did not object to the AI video.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.