Victim Impact Statements at Arizona Sentencing: What Is Allowed After the AI Video Ruling

State v. Horcasitas, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One, published Sep 30, 2026)

Disclaimer: This Guide is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Arizona sentencing law is fact-specific. If you are facing sentencing or believe something unfair happened at yours, talk with a licensed Arizona criminal defense lawyer about your situation.

If you or someone you love is facing sentencing in Arizona, the victim's statement can be the most powerful few minutes in the courtroom. On September 30, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals drew a new line on what that statement can include. In State v. Horcasitas, the court threw out a 10.5 year manslaughter sentence because the judge heard and relied on an AI video that recreated the victim speaking. It is the first Arizona case to decide whether an AI version of a victim can be used at sentencing.

Who this Guide may help

• People with a felony sentencing coming up in Maricopa County or anywhere in Arizona

• Families who expect the victim, or the victim's family, to speak at sentencing

• Anyone recently sentenced after a victim presentation that used AI, reenactments, or other made up content

If your case is ending without a sentencing hearing, this probably isn't your issue.

Why the clock matters: Arizona's deadline to file a notice of appeal is short, measured in days, not months. If something went wrong at your sentencing, waiting can cost you the chance to fix it.

What victims can do at an Arizona sentencing

Arizona's Victims' Bill of Rights gives crime victims the right to be heard at sentencing (Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(4)). Under A.R.S. § 13-4426, victims may address the court about the sentence. When they speak, victims are not witnesses. They don't take an oath, they can't be cross examined, and under A.R.S. § 13-4426.01 they don't have to share their statements ahead of time.

Sentencing judges also have wide discretion, and the normal rules of evidence don't apply. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.7(b) allows any reliable, relevant evidence, including hearsay.

That right to speak is not unlimited, though. The courts have set two main guardrails:

• A victim's statement can't violate the defendant's right to due process.

• Anything the judge relies on must have at least minimal reliability. You have a right to be sentenced on accurate information.

The Arizona Supreme Court has also warned prosecutors and victims “not to venture too close to the line,” and it has encouraged judges to screen and limit victim presentations that are unfairly prejudicial (State v. Rose, 2013).

What happened in the Horcasitas case

The case came from a 2021 road rage shooting at a Chandler stoplight. A jury convicted Gabriel Horcasitas of manslaughter. At sentencing, family members spoke, and the victim's brother read words the victim had actually written about his beliefs. Then the victim's sister played an AI video built from the victim's photo and voice. It showed him saying what she imagined he would say, including words of forgiveness.

The judge said he “loved that AI” and felt it “was genuine.” He then imposed the presumptive 10.5 years, which was more than the 9 years the State had asked for.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence. Real video clips of the victim were fine. The AI part was not, because it didn't reflect actual events. It took the sister's beliefs about what her brother would say and presented them in his own face and voice. The court said, “No disclaimer could cure that error.” Because the judge clearly relied on it, Mr. Horcasitas gets a new sentencing hearing.

One detail stands out. The AI video talked about forgiveness, not a harsher sentence, and the court still found it unfair. The problem was reliability, not tone.

The State could still ask the Arizona Supreme Court to review the decision.

What this means if you are facing sentencing

• Ask what is planned. Victims don't have to disclose their statements in advance, so your lawyer needs to be ready to respond in the moment.

• Object on the record. In Horcasitas, the defense didn't object at sentencing, so the appeal was reviewed under the tougher “fundamental error” standard. Objecting right away is the stronger position.

• Expect real material to come in. Actual photos, recordings, and the victim's own words are still generally allowed. Judges decide those case by case.

• Build your own mitigation. In this case the judge found that a lifetime without crime was mitigating, but said the family's loss reduced its weight. Letters, records, treatment, and genuine remorse all matter.

• Already sentenced? If AI or other invented content was used against you, talk to a lawyer about an appeal or post conviction relief quickly.

How Sun Valley Law Firm can help

Sentencing is where a few minutes can mean years. We prepare a mitigation package that gives the judge the full picture of who you are. We also watch for victim presentations that cross the line, make the objection on the record, and review recent sentences for errors like this one before the deadline runs. If your sentencing is coming up, or you think something unfair happened at yours, call Sun Valley Law Firm for a confidential consultation.

This Guide is general information about Arizona law, not legal advice. Every case is different. Talk with a licensed Arizona criminal defense attorney about your situation.

Free Consultation (602) 654-3005

Cite: State v. Horcasitas, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One, published Sep 30, 2026); Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(4); A.R.S. §§ 13-4426, 13-4426.01; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.7(b); State v. Rose, 2013.

Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.