Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
Arizona’s Court of Appeals has vacated a manslaughter sentence because the judge heard, and said he relied on, an AI-generated video of the victim at the sentencing hearing. The decision in State v. Horcasitas, a published Division One opinion filed September 30, 2026, arose from a road-rage shooting in Maricopa County. The court noted that no Arizona case had addressed an AI victim impact video before this one.
Division One affirmed the manslaughter conviction and found nothing wrong with the real footage of the victim that the family played. It rejected the AI-generated portion, which recreated the victim’s appearance and voice to deliver words his sister imagined he would say. Playing it was fundamental error that made the sentencing fundamentally unfair. James E. Novak has defended Arizona criminal charges in Maricopa County courts for more than 20 years. I read this opinion as a working guide to what a family can and cannot put in front of a sentencing judge.
What the Court of Appeals Decided in the Horcasitas Case
The first jury acquitted the defendant of murder and convicted him of manslaughter. The superior court then granted a new trial because the State had withheld text messages from the victim’s phone that supported his self-defense claim. A second jury convicted him of manslaughter, a dangerous offense. At sentencing, the victim’s relatives spoke and his brother read a statement the victim had written. The family then played a video in which an AI version of the victim addressed the court and told the defendant, in part, “I believe in forgiveness.”
The prosecutor asked for nine years. The judge said he “loved that AI” and felt the victim’s forgiveness was “genuine.” He then imposed the presumptive term of 10.5 years, noting it was more than the State had requested. The appeals court vacated that sentence and sent the case back for resentencing, which is a new sentencing hearing rather than a reduced sentence.
What Victim Impact Evidence May Include at an Arizona Sentencing
Victim impact evidence is information about the harm a crime caused, presented at sentencing by the victim or, after a death, by the victim’s family. Under A.R.S. § 13-4426, a victim may present evidence, information, and opinions about the offense, the defendant, the sentence, or restitution at any aggravation, mitigation, presentencing, or sentencing proceeding. The right is broad. Sentencing judges also have wide discretion over what information to consider.
Victims do not speak as witnesses. Under A.R.S. § 13-4426.01, a victim’s statement is not subject to disclosure to the defense in advance, and the victim is not subject to cross-examination. The same statute gives the State and the defense the opportunity to explain, support, or deny what the victim said. That provision is how the defense answers a statement that gets the facts wrong.
The limit comes from due process. A defendant has the right to be sentenced on accurate information, and the opinion repeats the Arizona rule that sentencing evidence must carry at least a minimal indicia of reliability. Victim impact evidence is allowed unless it is so unduly prejudicial that it makes the sentencing fundamentally unfair.
Where the AI Victim Impact Video Crossed the Line
The court compared the video to photographs of a homicide victim’s young sons at his grave. The Arizona Supreme Court had allowed those photographs in an earlier case while describing them as uncomfortably close to the line. The photographs recorded a real moment. The AI video, the court wrote, presented a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from his sister’s imagination, delivered as though it came from the victim himself.
The court also held that no disclaimer could cure the problem, even though the video opened by saying it was an AI recreation. The AI victim told the court it was “a true representation of who I was.” The judge’s own comments showed the video affected him. The record did not show exactly how it moved the sentence, though the court found no question that it played a role.
What a Defense Lawyer Does When Victim Impact Evidence Goes Too Far
The defense in Horcasitas did not object to the video at the hearing, so the appeals court reviewed it only for fundamental error, a standard that is harder for a defendant to meet. The defendant still prevailed under that standard, but an objection made in the courtroom puts the issue in front of the judge while the sentence can still be shaped. The Arizona Supreme Court has encouraged judges to screen and, if necessary, limit victim impact presentations. When a family plans to play a video or show images, I ask the court to do that before anything is played.
The sentence in a violent crime case in Arizona depends heavily on mitigation. In Horcasitas the judge found the defendant’s law-abiding life mitigating but said the family’s loss reduced its weight. I answer that kind of reasoning with records, witnesses, and the client’s own history, and I use § 13-4426.01 to respond to anything in the victim’s statement that is wrong. I would rather look at this with you before the court date than after it. Call (480) 413-1499, and there is no charge for the conversation.
Questions About Victim Impact Statements in Arizona
Can a Victim’s Family Speak at a Sentencing Hearing in Arizona?
Yes, A.R.S. § 13-4426 lets a victim present evidence, information, and opinions about the offense, the defendant, and the sentence at a sentencing proceeding, and gives the victim the right to address the court. When the victim has died, family members usually speak in that role. They do not take an oath or face cross-examination.
Can the Defense Respond to a Victim Impact Statement?
Yes, under A.R.S. § 13-4426.01 the State and the defense must be given the opportunity to explain, support, or deny the victim’s statement. The defense cannot cross-examine the victim, but it can correct facts, offer its own evidence, and object to material that is unreliable or unduly prejudicial.
Does a Resentencing Mean a Shorter Sentence?
Not necessarily, because in Horcasitas the court of appeals affirmed the manslaughter conviction and vacated only the sentence, so the superior court will sentence the defendant again. The new term can fall anywhere in the range the law allows for that offense. The mitigating factors in sentencing presented at the new hearing can affect where it lands.
Preparing for a Sentencing Hearing in Maricopa County
After a conviction for a violent offense, the judge picks a term inside a range that can span several years. The defense prepares for that range and for whatever the victim’s family plans to present. The Law Office of James E. Novak represents clients at sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court, including hearings with victim impact presentations. I am glad to talk it through with you. Call (480) 413-1499 or contact my office, and the initial consultation is free.