An Arizona man convicted of a road-rage killing was sentenced last week to 10½ years in prison after his victim spoke to the court through artificial intelligence, potentially marking the first-ever use of this technology in such a setting, officials said Wednesday. On Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang imposed the maximum sentence on Gabriel Paul Horcasitas for the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Christopher Pelkey on November 13, 2021, prosecutors reported. Horcasitas, 54, was found guilty earlier this year of manslaughter and endangerment. Judge Lang permitted Pelkey’s family to present an AI-generated representation of the victim—a realistic avatar featuring his face, body, and voice—that appeared to appeal to 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 AI Pelkey expressed. "In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness. ” The concept of using an AI version of Pelkey originated from his family, not the prosecution, according to his loved ones and a spokesperson from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, and her husband, who both work in the AI industry, conceived the idea. Wales recalled that when she suggested bringing her late brother to life through AI, her husband initially resisted. “He recoiled, ” Wales told NBC News. “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. ’ Then he added, ‘If this isn’t perfect, if this doesn’t truly embody the spirit of Chris, I won’t let it be shown. ’” Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter and endangerment in spring 2023, but a new trial was ordered after a judge ruled prosecutors failed to timely disclose potentially crucial evidence. Wales explained that she hadn’t thought of the AI idea back in 2023. After two years of struggling to draft a victim impact statement, she realized that only her late brother’s voice truly mattered. “Whenever I was alone—whether in the shower or car—and my thoughts were quiet, I wrote down everything I felt: frustration, tears, emotions, shouting, anger, love, anything, ” she said. “I’d been writing for two years, but the idea to help Chris speak didn’t come until a week and a half before this second trial. ” She added, “What I had to say didn’t seem sufficient for the last person deciding Chris’ fate. ” Horcasitas faced a prison term ranging from seven to 10½ years, with his defense requesting the minimum sentence. Judge Lang imposed the maximum but acknowledged the AI segment’s message. “Despite your justified anger, I heard forgiveness, ” he stated. “That forgiveness seemed genuine and reflects the character of Mr. Pelkey, as described to me today. ” Defense attorney Jason Lamm remarked that the AI presentation raises significant grounds for appeal. “Judges certainly have discretion over what victim statements to admit, ” Lamm said, “but an appellate court will need to decide if allowing this was an error, if it crossed the line into being inflammatory, and to what extent the judge relied on it when sentencing my client. ” Gary Marchant, a law professor at Arizona State University specializing in ethics and emerging technologies, commended Pelkey’s family for creating a portrayal seemingly against their interest in urging the harshest sentence for Horcasitas. However, he voiced concerns about the precedent this sets. “The family did an excellent job of conveying what he might have said, given they knew him best, ” Marchant explained. “But, on the other hand, it’s entirely fabricated; it’s not real. ” While prosecutors and defense have traditionally used visual aids, charts, and other materials to strengthen their arguments, Marchant noted that AI introduces new ethical complexities.