(People v. Whittaker, 199 Ill.App.3d 621, 629, 145 Ill.Dec. In doing so, we relied upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. Defendant also argues that Judge Urso should have held a hearing on her motion to suppress based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 256, 637 N.E.2d 992 (1994) (Hobley I), and People v. Hobley, 182 Ill.2d 404, 231 Ill.Dec. However, we are unpersuaded by defendant's reliance upon Thompson. During argument on defendant's motion, defense counsel argued that new evidence, that being testimony from defendant's brothers, was now available. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, but remanded the case for a hearing on the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856. Following a second jury trial, where defendant's statements to police were again admitted, defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. The court then denied defendant's motion to suppress her oral and written statements. Throughout the years, Da Brat and Lisa Raye havent spoken much publicly about their fathers murder. McCoy, 53, a self-made millionaire and bon vivant, was found dead in the back seat of his black Cadillac on Nov. 12, 1988. However, she did not attempt to call Tyrone at the hearing on her motion. In connection with the motion to suppress, defendant filed two subpoenas duces tecum upon the City, requesting, inter alia, the production of all documents relating to disciplinary complaints against any of the officers at Area 2 who were expected to be called as witnesses at her trial. In reliance upon this two-part inquiry, defendant argues that no longer does a defendant's voluntary and consensual trip to the police station to answer questions end the inquiry as to whether the defendant is in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings, as was ruled by Judge Toomin and this court in Daniels I. In the instant case, defendant maintains that he probably would not have been convicted had his attorney properly argued and presented his motion to suppress. Another was where the defendant had been acquitted of some charges, thereby precluding him from seeking appellate review of the trial court's rulings. Here, defendant has never said she was beaten. On direct examination, defendant testified to an incident that occurred in May of 1980 where McCoy had pistol whipped her about the head with a gun while the two sat in a car. 1 On appeal, with one justice dissenting, this court ruled, inter alia, that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's But if the legal issue has never been presented to a trial court and a hearing conducted thereon, and/or if the court has never issued a ruling on the precise legal issue then the doctrine of the law of the case simply cannot be applied because, in reality, there is no law of the case to apply. Defendant argues that Sheila's statement "figured prominently" in the court's determination and thus, because that statement was "admitted solely due to defense counsel's efforts[,] obviously defendant has been deprived of effective assistance of counsel.". After denial of her motion, defendant filed written offers of proof, which stated that, if called to testify at a hearing, Tyrone and Anthony would substantiate the allegations of abuse contained in her second amended motion to suppress. 98. 20, 595 N.E.2d 83. On November 4, 1988, after receiving reports of an abandoned car blocking an alley, police discovered the body of David Ray McCoy, lying face up with three gunshot wounds to the head, in the back seat of his car. After giving his statement to Cummings, defendant spoke with Sheila in the interview room. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 304, 745 N.E.2d 78 (2001); People v. Chanthaloth, 318 Ill.App.3d 806, 816, 252 Ill.Dec. In determining that the defendant had failed to show that the sentencing error in his case was prejudicial, the court in Crespo held: we have no doubt that a jury, presented with these facts, would have found that the crime was committed in a brutal and heinous manner, indicative of wanton cruelty. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d at 348-49, 273 Ill.Dec. In her motion to suppress filed before her first trial and in the first motion to suppress filed with Judge Urso, defendant said nothing about Anthony's beaten condition as being a reason for her inculpatory statements. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid the other person in the planning or commission of the offense. In response, the police told him that he "might as well tell everything * * * because your sister is fixing to go to jail for a murder." The trial court disagreed and dismissed the petition. Therefore, only those facts necessary for proper consideration of the instant appeal will be repeated here. He was found shot to death in the back seat of his Cadillac, which was parked in a Southside Chicago alley. Defendant contends next that the trial court erred in quashing her subpoenas and asserts she should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on her motion to suppress based on the material sought in those subpoenas. Defendant makes much about the fact that the jury wanted to review the medical records, arguing that because the jurors were denied access to the records, they probably believed defendant was lying about the beating and therefore, convicted her for that reason. We follow those decisions and therefore, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for imposition of a new sentence. After a discussion of the evidence and the applicable case law, which consisted almost entirely of defendant's arguments based on the fourth amendment, we held, Accordingly, we find that the circuit court properly denied her motion to suppress. Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 336, 208 Ill.Dec. Following an investigation and attempts to trace the gun, police spoke with, and later arrested, Sheila Daniels, defendant's sister. Shortly thereafter, one of the police officers punched him in his stomach and grabbed him by his hair, knocking his head into the wall. That fact alone distinguishes defendant's case from the Greenspawn case where the X-ray technician had testified as to the authenticity of the X-rays. Defendant appears to be redrafting motions to suppress, after having the benefit of Judge Toomin's ruling and our affirmance of that ruling, in an attempt to put a new spin on an old motion. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion. Hinton, 302 Ill.App.3d at 622, 236 Ill.Dec. After being told that Sheila had "told [the police] that [defendant] was the one that did the murder on David Ray McCoy," defendant gave the police a different version. On November 12th, 1988, David Ray McCoy (shown above with Lisa Raye) was discovered shot to death in the back seat of his Cadillac in a Southside Chicago alley. 688], 721 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (1999), [judgment vacated by People v. Huff, 195 Ill.2d 87 [253 Ill.Dec. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001) and People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352, 272 Ill.Dec. In Thurow, our supreme court held that, in those cases where the defendant did object to his sentence in the circuit court, the reviewing court should apply a harmless error analysis: Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d at 368-69 [272 Ill.Dec. Nowhere does the record indicate that defendant was somehow controlled or dominated by his sister or that he would abide by her wishes to his own detriment. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-89, 104 S.Ct. Screen Printing and Embroidery for clothing and accessories, as well as Technical Screenprinting, Overlays, and Labels for industrial and commercial applications On November 18, 1988, shortly after speaking with Sheila, police arrested defendant. David Ray Mccoy was killed by his girlfriend of 10 years, Sheila Daniels, and her brother, Tyrone. 64, 762 N.E.2d 633 (2001), the first trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence on the ground that the defendant had been arrested without probable cause. While searching the apartment, the police told him to get dressed, giving him some of his clothes; they did not, however, provide him any underwear or socks. Defendant lastly argues that defense counsel improperly refused to allow him to testify. However, [i]n a criminal case, where one party is successful in contesting a pretrial order on appeal, reversal and remandment does not preclude the trial court from considering other issues originally raised in the pretrial proceedings but not finally determined by the appellate court on the merits. [People v. Feagans, 134 Ill.App.3d 252, 257, 89 Ill.Dec. Defendant sought a hearing on her motion to suppress. Defendant contends next that the trial court erred in not allowing the admission of medical records regarding treatment she had received following a beating from McCoy. Again, the record does not support defendant's assertion. People v. Enis, 139 Ill.2d 264, 300, 151 Ill.Dec. AIR Awareness Outreach; AIR Business Lunch & Learn; AIR Community of Kindness; AIR Dogs: Paws For Minds AIR Hero AIR & NJAMHAA Conference 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. We further note that there was credible evidence in the record that the deceased was an abusive domestic partner, indicating the existence of mitigating factors under sections 5-5-3.1(a)(4) and (a)(8) of the Unified Code of Corrections. As for defendant's claim that there was new evidence upon which to reopen the motion to suppress statements, again, we disagree. See M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence 602.1, at 369 (7th ed.1999). The reason the evidence is new is that Tyrone would have invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination had he been called to testify at defendant's motion to suppress. There is no question that a criminal defendant's prerogative to testify at his own trial is a fundamental right; the question of the exercise of that right is thus not a matter of a strategic or tactical decision best left to trial counsel. New theories supporting suppression do not constitute additional evidence that has become available since the first hearing to suppress. Hattery, 183 Ill.App.3d at 805-06, 132 Ill.Dec. The trial court found that the defendant waived the issue of his allegedly coerced confession by failing to raise it on direct appeal. Finally, defendant contends and that her 80-year extended-term sentence is unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. In the absence of an agreement of the parties, medical reports are not admissible without the foundation testimony of the persons who made the entries in the record. David's death shocked many of his business associates as he spoke fondly of Daniels, and the two had been together for over ten years. The record, however, does not support the contention that defendant was influenced to a great extent by his sister. A South Side woman has been convicted for the second time of killing millionaire David Ray McCoy, her live-in boyfriend, in 1988. Prior to his trial, the defendant had moved to suppress statements, arguing they were the result of police misconduct. In reliance upon Cannon, Patterson and King, defendant argues the OPS report constitutes new evidence, entitling her to a hearing on her reoffered amended motion to suppress. 493, 564 N.E.2d 1155 (1990). Also, at no time did Judge Toomin state that he was denying the motion to suppress based upon the opinions of police officers who questioned defendant as to their belief regarding whether defendant was in custody.. This court recently addressed this issue. The police told him that if he did not cooperate his sister might get the death penalty. 143, 706 N.E.2d 1017. Hobley I, 159 Ill.2d at 312, 202 Ill.Dec. People v. Davis, 322 Ill.App.3d 762, 765, 256 Ill.Dec. Rather, the only evidence presented that defendant acquiesced to his sister's will was his statement that he took her advice to "tell the truth.". A trial court retains jurisdiction to reconsider an order it has entered, even after remand, as long as the cause is pending before the trial court. David Ray McCoy was an American businessman and millionaire. 1, 670 N.E.2d 679 (1996), the defendant similarly alleged that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition because of newly discovered evidence regarding Area 2 which disclosed a pattern of brutality directed at suspects in custody. The constitutionally guaranteed right of effective assistance of counsel has not been provided if defendant can prove that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's shortcomings "were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial." At the age of 53, David Ray Mccoy was brutally murdered in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, on November 13, 1988. Finally, the court found incredible defendant's testimony that the assistant State's Attorney purported to be her attorney, and stated that no credible evidence existed that her will was overborne or that she had invoked her right to counsel. Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 334, 208 Ill.Dec. Upon the City's motion for reconsideration, the trial court, finding that defendant was undertaking a fishing expedition, granted the City's motion to quash the subpoenas. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). 303, 585 N.E.2d 1325. A jury of nine women and three men returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder against Sheila Daniels, 41, late Monday night. The fact that the trial court did a more thorough job of analyzing the issues than did this court speaks well of Judge Toomin's abilities. 98 (1931), where the trial court refused to admit X-rays of the defendant's teeth into evidence. People v. Staten, 89 Ill.App.3d 1113, 1116, 45 Ill.Dec. She alleged that police informed her that they would continue beating Tyrone and might even subject her to physical cruelty unless she made admissions relating to her involvement in McCoy's murder. Defendant then emptied McCoy's wallet of money, and dumped it in a trash bin at a McDonald's restaurant. Moreover, the fact that defendant did not get the records until the day she testified in her retrial violated the letter and spirit of our rules relating to discovery. The State argued that the doctrine of law of the case barred a subsequent hearing on defendant's motion. 308, 417 N.E.2d 1322 (1981). In his lengthy findings of facts, Judge Toomin first reiterated the theories raised in defendant's motion to suppress. 493, 412 N.E.2d 1075 (1980). 698, 557 N.E.2d 468.) Specifically, defendant asserts that his trial counsel erroneously presented a coercion and physical abuse theory during the suppression hearing, rather than the more "viable" theory that defendant was influenced or controlled by his older sister. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. See Supreme Court Rule 413(c) (134 Ill.2d R. 413(c)) (requiring that the State be informed of, and permitted to inspect and copy or photograph, any reports or results, or testimony relative thereto, of physical or mental examinations ***.). Cline responded, She was not under arrest. The court ordered an in camera inspection of records naming officers in relevant police reports, who had complaints of physical abuse or civil lawsuits for abuse filed against them. The doctrine, however, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided; it is not a limit on their power. Patterson, 154 Ill.2d at 468-69, 182 Ill.Dec. Further, defendant cannot liken his situation to that of the defendant in People v. Rhoads (1979), 73 Ill.App.3d 288, 29 Ill.Dec. After the stipulations to the transcripts, Cummings gave essentially the same testimony that he had given in the suppression hearing. 38, par. 1827, 1838, 144 L.Ed.2d 35, 53 (1999). Cook County. 312, 556 N.E.2d 1214. 2052, 2065; People v. Whittaker (1990), 199 Ill.App.3d 621, 627, 145 Ill.Dec. Thus, defendant's contention that his counsel did not provide adequate legal assistance in this regard must fail. After the prosecution rested, the defense presented no witnesses; however, the defense did offer into evidence Sheila Daniels' statement made to police. After Sheila left, defendant decided to cooperate with the police; however, he was still not advised of his constitutional rights. Her brother, Tyrone, was convicted and is serving a 60-year sentence for shooting McCoy twice more to make sure he was dead. Justice DiVITO delivered the opinion of the court: After a bench trial, defendant Tyrone Daniels was found guilty of first degree murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. In her motion, defendant asserted that she had been illegally arrested in her home without a warrant in the absence of probable cause, which was a violation of her fourth amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. We disagree with defendant's position that Judge Toomin did not rule on the fifth amendment aspects of her first motion to suppress. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224 (1994) (Daniels I). 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.1(a)(4), (a)(8) (West 1996). This court has consistently held that in cases where the defendants received an extended term of imprisonment pursuant to section 5-5-3.2(b)(2), the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. She claims the propriety of the police conduct once she arrived at Area 2, which implicates a fifth amendment violation, has never been ruled upon. In particular, she contested his determinations that she had voluntarily accompanied police to the station from her home on November 17, 1988, that she had not been tricked by police into accompanying them and that her statement to the polygraph operator was sufficient to establish probable cause for her arrest. Defendant argues next that recent case law and significant changes regarding the voluntariness of a defendant's confessions require a hearing on her motion to suppress. Choices which are made on the basis of strategic considerations after a thorough investigation of all matters relevant to plausible options have traditionally been considered to be unchallengeable. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a new suppression hearing. (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. See People v. Golden, 342 Ill.App.3d 820, 277 Ill.Dec. The Jones court relied heavily on the holding in People v. Enis, 163 Ill.2d 367, 206 Ill.Dec. The State appealed the suppression order, but only challenged the standard that the trial court applied. After defendant allowed the police entry, he was told to get up against the wall and to drop the blanket which he had wrapped about his naked body. He was shot. Clearly, defense counsel was aware of the applicable law concerning accountability and presented a defense based on that law, not on any "misapprehension" of it. After the trial court denied defendant's amended motion to quash arrest and suppress statements, she was granted leave to file an amended motion to suppress statements. At 3 a.m. she was placed under arrest for McCoy's death and advised of her Miranda rights. Further, there is no credible evidence in this record that the defendant's will was overborne ***.. In the present cause, the order was to quash an arrest and suppress evidence, period. In resentencing defendant upon remand, we would point out to the trial court that this defendant had no convictions prior to committing this offense. Defense counsel explained that Tyrone, who would have asserted his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination at defendant's first trial, would testify at a subsequent hearing. The supreme court reversed that determination and granted the defendant a hearing on his petition. In Crespo, our supreme court determined that sentences which violate Apprendi are reviewed under a plain error analysis when the defendant failed to object to the sentence in the circuit court. Consequently, we find that defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel by his counsel's failure to present the argument that defendant was psychologically influenced by his sister. Make an enquiry and our team will be get in touch with you ASAP. 18-2(a)), and concealment of a homicidal death (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. at 465, 133 L.Ed.2d at 394. 1. 12, 735 N.E.2d 616. See People v. Bourke (1992), 223 Ill.App.3d 732, 166 Ill.Dec. In a separate bench trial, defendant's brother, Tyrone Daniels, was also convicted of first degree murder in connection with McCoy's death. airbnb with pool in detroit, michigan; firefly axolotl for sale twitter; super bowl 2022 halftime show memes instagram; what happened to suzanne pleshette voice youtube In reliance upon testimony from a police officer that the defendant was not in custody until the officer's suspicions focused on the defendant, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and the California Supreme Court affirmed. 698, 557 N.E.2d 468.) 267, 480 N.E.2d 153 (1985). Considering the facts of the instant case, we simply cannot say that the State has meet its burden to show that the evidence was so overwhelming that the crime was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty so that we have no doubt that a jury would have made this finding. Sheila Daniels, 41, first convicted in 1990, was ordered retried two years ago by the Illinois Appellate Court after the defense complained of prosecutorial misconduct. In pertinent part, this included the following: On November 14, 1988, Edward Vrdolyak, an attorney and longtime friend, came to [defendant's] home and offered to help. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, Similarly, defendant argues the trial court should have admitted the medical records in this case because they supported her claim of self-defense in that they related to her state of mind at the time she shot McCoy. After learning she had failed the exam, she implicated her brother Tyrone in McCoy's murder. The trial court responded that the records were not available and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. window._taboola = window._taboola || []; ace school of tomorrow answer keys . When defendant, who had brought the records to court with her, was questioned by defense counsel regarding the records, the State objected on the ground the documents had not been certified. The special circumstances present in Jones was the fact that the appellate court had previously reversed the defendant's conviction and held that the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress as to one of three statements was erroneous. David's death shocked many of his business associates as he spoke fondly of Daniels, and the two had been together for over ten years. Tyrone DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant. In fact, the section of Cleary and Graham relating to the admission of medical and hospital records explains that while the requirement of calling all persons who made the entries to testify has virtually disappeared with respect to the admission of business records, it continues to be applied to medical records. David was found dead in 1988 in the back seat of his car. Further, he could not read or write and did not know that the consent form he signed meant that anything found in his apartment could be used against him in court. Defendant acknowledges that the support for his contention is not contained in the record, but he raises the error "so as to present defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in it's (sic) proper perspective," promising to file a post-conviction petition raising this issue. Issues (1) and (2) will be considered in published portions of this opinion and issues (3) and (4) will be determined in unpublished portions of this opinion. Under the harmless error analysis, the burden is upon the State to prove that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error to avoid reversal. After a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. David was killed by his then-long-term girlfriend, Sheila Daniels, and her brother. David McCoy (pictured in a framed photo in the above pic of Lisa Raye) was found shot to death on November 12, 1988 in the back seat of his Cadillac, which was parked in a Southside Chicago alley. There is, however, a strong presumption that counsel's performance falls within the "wide range of professional assistance." Home > Blog > Uncategorized > david ray mccoy obituary chicago. But she contended at the second trial that she had shot him only after McCoy verbally abused her and threatened her with his own gun. v. Defendant-Appellant. This court affirmed Justice Toomin's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and therefore addressed defendant's fourth and fifth amendment rights. She later filed her reoffered motion to suppress, which was also denied. Following a jury trial in 1990 before Judge Michael P. Toomin, defendant Sheila Daniels was convicted of the first degree murder of her paraplegic boyfriend, David McCoy, and was sentenced to an 80-year prison term.1 On appeal, with one justice dissenting, this court ruled, inter alia, that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements, but reversed defendant's conviction, finding the admission of polygraph results at her trial improper. On January 23, 1997, defendant filed her Reoffered Second Amended Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Statements, which was identical to her second amended motion to suppress. Family Members . Sheila then entered the interrogation room and, after hugging defendant, told him loudly "to do whatever they say to do, we was (sic) gone (sic) go home and everything was gone (sic) be all right." In her second amended motion to quash arrest and suppress statements filed on May 21, 1996, defendant again alleged she had made admissions due to the physical abuse Tyrone had endured at the hands of the police. Under similar facts, the same result was reached in People v. King, 192 Ill.2d 189, 198-99, 248 Ill.Dec. On appeal, this court rejected the defendant's argument which we characterized as being based on a claim of new evidence. Applying the analysis used in Hobley I and Hobley II to the facts before it, this court in Hinton held that the new evidence presented in the defendant's postconviction petition did not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing because he, like Hobley, did not present sufficient evidence of an injury. In a motion to cite additional authority filed after oral arguments were heard in this case, defendant cited the recent holding in People v. Jones, 315 Ill.App.3d 500, 504, 248 Ill.Dec. His conviction and sentence were affirmed in People v. Daniels, 230 Ill.App.3d 527, 172 Ill.Dec. Sheila Daniels, 41, first convicted in 1990, was. 356, 547 N.E.2d 523 (1989), and People v. Nicholls, 42 Ill.2d 91, 245 N.E.2d 771 (1969), ruled that defendant's confession was voluntary. (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 528, 589 N.E.2d 928. Father of actress LisaRaye McCoy. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sheila DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant. After the defense rested, the State objected to the admission of the medical records into evidence, on the ground that a proper foundation had not been laid. }); Copyright 2015 . The sequence of events relating to the arrests of Anthony and Tyrone as recited in Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 333-34, 208 Ill.Dec. After this court reversed her conviction and remanded the case, defendant filed another motion to quash arrest and suppress statements, which was twice amended and once reoffered. mesquite to las vegas airport; greenville public school district address; houses for rent in huntsville, al under $600; Blog Post Title February 26, 2018. McCoys then 32 year old live-in girlfriend of 10 years, Sheila Daniels, and her then 20 year old brother, Tyrone, were convicted of McCoys murder in 1990. In support of those motions, defendant alleged that the police had lacked probable cause to arrest him, that he was not advised of his constitutional rights at any time subsequent to his arrest, that his admissions were involuntary and the result of police coercion, and that Sheila had acted as an agent of the police. People v. Feagans, 134 Ill.App.3d 252, 89 Ill.Dec. In Hobley I, the supreme court found that it was not error for the trial court to bar the testimony at trial of three people who claimed they had also been abused by the same officer who abused Hobley. The section of Cleary and Graham defendant relies upon relates to the personal knowledge requirement of testifying witnesses, not the requirements of admission of medical records. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Shortly thereafter, defendant was interviewed by an assistant State's Attorney, who advised him of his rights. Sheila Daniels and her brother Tyrone killed David Ray Mccoy, who had been dating her for ten years. Working through a trace of the gun used in the murder, police returned to defendant's house on November 17, 1988, to question her again about McCoy's death and some telephone logs the police had acquired. While other reports suggest that Daniels killed himafter the two had an argument at their home over a high electric bill. To warrant the use of a pretrial subpoena, a defendant must show: (1) that the documents requested are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that the documents are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that he or she cannot properly prepare for trial without production and inspection in advance of trial and that failure to obtain an inspection may tend to unreasonably delay trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition. Shukovsky, 128 Ill.2d at 225, 131 Ill.Dec.