The road-rage killer of an Arizona man was sentenced last week to 10½ years behind bars after his victim spoke to the court via artificial intelligence in what could be the first-of-its-kind use of the technology, officials said Wednesday.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang on Thursday gave the maximum sentence to Gabriel Paul Horcasitas for the fatal shooting of Christopher Pelkey, 37, on Nov. 13, 2021, prosecutors said.
Horcasitas, 54, was convicted of manslaughter and endangerment this year.
Lang allowed Pelkey’s loved ones to play an AI-generated version of the victim — his face and body and a lifelike voice that appeared to ask the judge for leniency.
“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me: It is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the artificial version of Pelkey said. “In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness.”
The idea of using an AI version of Pelkey came from his family, not the state, according to his loved ones and a Maricopa County Attorney’s Office spokesperson.
Stacey Wales, Pelkey’s sister, and his brother-in-law both work in the AI field. When Wales suggested bringing her late brother to life like that, she said, her husband was more than hesitant.
“He recoiled,” Wales told NBC News. “And he said: ‘Stacey, do you know what you’re asking me to do? This is my best friend.’ And I said: ‘I know. It’s my brother.’ And then he said, ‘If this isn’t perfect, if this doesn’t go out and really embody the spirit of Chris, I’m not going to let this be shown.'”
Horcasitas had been convicted of manslaughter and endangerment at trial in spring 2023. But a new trial was ordered when a judge ruled that prosecutors failed to property disclose potentially key evidence in a timely manner.
Wales said she hadn’t come up with the idea in 2023. After two years of trying to craft a victim impact statement, she said, she had the epiphany that the only voice that mattered was her late brother’s.
“Every time I’d get in the shower or the car and my thoughts were quiet, I wrote down what I was feeling — frustrated, crying or emotions, yelling, anger, love, anything that I could think of,” she said.
“I’ve been writing it for two years, but I never had the idea to help Chris speak until a week and a half before this second trial.”
She added: “What I had to say did not seem like it would do justice to the last person listening to make a decision on Chris’ life.”
Horcasitas faced seven to 10½ years in prison. The defense asked for the lowest punishment.
Lang delivered the maximum, but he acknowledged the words in the presentation. “And as angry as you are, justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,” he said. “I feel like that was genuine, that his obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about [Pelkey] today.”
Defense lawyer Jason Lamm said the AI presentation created a strong issue for appeal.
“While judges certainly have latitude as to what to hear, particularly from victims, an appellate court will have to decide if this was error,” Lamm said, “if it was just simply too far over the line in terms of being inflammatory and to what degree the judge relied on it in imposing a sentence on my client.”
Arizona State University law professor Gary Marchant, who specializes in ethics and emerging technologies, praised Pelkey’s loved ones for producing a work that appeared to be against their self-interest of securing a maximum penalty for Horcasitas.
But he said he’s worried about the precedent it set.
“The family did a really good job of representing what he would have said, and they would have the best sense of what he would have said,” Marchant said. “But on the other hand, it’s completely fake, right? It’s not true.”
While prosecutors and defense lawyers have long used visual aids, charts and other illustrations to make their points, Marchant said, AI presents new ethical challenges.
“I mean, it’s a blurry line, right?” said Marchant, who is on a state Supreme Court committee advising on the use of AI. “You see someone speaking who isn’t really speaking, right? You see that person in the courtroom actually speaking, and in reality, they’re dead and they’re not speaking. So this is an extra jump that I feel is going to get us into dangerous grounds.”