Facts
In November 2021 a man was shot dead after a road-rage confrontation at a traffic light in Chandler, Arizona. At a retrial, a jury rejected the defendant’s self-defense claim and convicted him of manslaughter. At the May 2025 sentencing hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, after statements from relatives and friends, the victim’s family played a video created with AI from his photograph and a voice profile, in which he appeared to address the court and forgive the defendant. The video disclosed that it was AI-generated and also contained genuine footage. The judge said he “loved” the video and imposed 10.5 years, more than the prosecution had requested.
Question
The defendant argued that the AI depiction was unreliable and that he had no meaningful opportunity to rebut it. Because no objection was made at the hearing, the issue was reviewed for fundamental error. The question was whether the synthetic portions of the video had the minimal reliability required of information used to determine a sentence, and whether the judge’s consideration of them violated due process. The State argued the video was reliable because it reflected what the victim’s sister believed he would have said.
Decision
In a unanimous published opinion, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. Arizona’s victims’ rights protections do not displace a defendant’s due process right to be sentenced on reliable information. The synthetic segments presented the family’s understanding of the victim’s views as his own words, a depiction “created from the imaginings” of his sister, and the AI disclosure at the start did not cure the problem. The judge’s remarks showed that the video “clearly impacted” him, so its consideration rendered the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Genuine footage in the same video was unaffected, and a separate evidentiary challenge was rejected.
Why it matters
By the court’s own account, no earlier Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence. The court distinguished authentic recordings and photographs, which remain usable as victim impact material, from synthetic speech attributed to a person who never said it. It also made clear that labelling content as AI-generated does not by itself make it reliable. Other courtroom uses of AI, such as restoring recordings or preparing demonstrative exhibits, were left open.
Related stages
The defendant will be resentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court. Because no aggravating factors were proved, the new sentence cannot exceed 10.5 years. Press reports noted that the case could still go to the Arizona Supreme Court; as of mid-October 2026 no petition for review had been reported.