STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIEL M. PAGE(15-043, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4518-15T2

Background

On Nov. 12, 2014 Officer George Jadue observed Daniel Page’s vehicle cross a yellow line and pulled the vehicle over after following it and activating an MVR.
Officer Jadue observed bloodshot, watery eyes, slow speech, odor of alcohol, and Page admitted drinking two beers; Page performed poorly on walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests. Officer Jadue arrested Page for DWI and read Miranda warnings.
At police HQ an Alcotest machine showed a “solution change” error; Page was transported to a State Police barracks where the first machine froze and a second machine produced two breath samples showing .15% BAC. Trooper Berwise operated the successful Alcotest and testified he observed Page for the required 20 minutes.
Page was convicted in municipal court of DWI (per se and observational) and failing to maintain lane; the Law Division affirmed after a de novo trial. Page appealed raising five main challenges that the court addressed.
The Appellate Division reviewed whether (1) the 20‑minute observation requirement was satisfied despite alleged conflicts in officer testimony; (2) delay in testing was unreasonable; (3) denial of discovery about other Alcotest machines was erroneous; (4) allowing defense to call a witness early deprived Page of presumption of innocence; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to convict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Page)	Held
20‑minute observation before Alcotest	Trooper Berwise continuously observed Page for 20 minutes and ensured no mouth contamination; operator testimony satisfies Chun requirements	Testimony of Officer Jadue and Trooper Berwise conflicted, so State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the required observation	State proved observation by credible, consistent testimony; conviction affirmed
Delay in administering Alcotest	Delay was caused by equipment malfunctions and transport; test was given within a reasonable time and Page showed no prejudice	Two machine failures and delay rendered test unreasonable; alternative blood test should have been offered	Delay found reasonable (under Samarel/Tischio line); no prejudice shown; per se conviction stands
Discovery of other Alcotest machines/data	State provided all data for the machine that produced the admissible reading	Page requested data on other machines attempted to be used and reasons for delay	Trial court did not abuse discretion; other machines were not relevant to the valid test actually used
Calling defense witness out of order	No objection at trial; defense volunteered to call expert early; court authorized order of witnesses	Allowing defense witness before prosecution rested deprived Page of presumption of innocence and due process	Invited error; no reversible error because defense elected to proceed and court has discretion to call witnesses out of order
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (DWI and lane maintenance)	MVR, officer observations, poor field sobriety performance, admission of drinking, and .15% BAC together support per se and observational convictions	Testimony inconsistencies and lack of findings about road conditions create reasonable doubt	Credible substantial evidence supports both convictions; findings affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) (sets Alcotest foundational and 20‑minute observation requirements)
State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504 (1987) (breath tests must be taken within a reasonable time after arrest)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (standard of review for municipal appeals)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999) (deference to trial court credibility findings; two‑court rule)
State v. Ugrovics, 410 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 2009) (operator testimony may satisfy 20‑minute observation burden)
State v. Campbell, 436 N.J. Super. 264 (App. Div. 2014) (burden to prove Alcotest procedure by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582 (2016) (liberal municipal discovery principles)
State v. Samarel, 231 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 1989) (delay of several hours held reasonable where no prejudice shown)