After a jury trial, Samuel Brown was convicted of trafficking in cocaine1 and possession of tools electronic scales for the commission of a crime.2 On appeal, Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that other individuals had equal access to the premises. Brown also argues that the trial court erred by 1 admitting impermissible character evidence; 2 not recusing from Brown’s trial or new trial motion; 3 not excusing for cause an employee of the Sheriff’s Department; 4 admitting evidence of contraband seized from Brown’s home; and 5 denying Brown’s motion for new trial on the basis that Brown received ineffective assistance of counsel related to each of the above-listed errors. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part; with regard to Brown’s allegation that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3, we remand to the trial court with direction as stated in Division 2 b. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,3 Probation Officer Holli Braden and other officers conducted a field visit of Brown’s residence on January 11, 2008. Brown was the only individual at the home, and while he was talking to Braden, Brown told her he needed to use the restroom. Braden became suspicious, and she went to search the restroom while other officers searched the home. She discovered in the toilet tank an object she could not identify immediately, which another officer present identified as scales normally used to measure narcotics. That other officer, Investigator Al Kelly, who was deceased by the time of trial, uncovered large quantities of crack cocaine covered in unused toilet tissue in the trash can of the restroom, while Braden and a third officer, who photographed the evidence, witnessed the discovery. Also discovered was a closed circuit surveillance system, which monitored all of the home’s approaches, and $3,542 in currency on Brown’s person.
Brown testified at trial in his own defense, and he admitted that he resided at the house at which the cocaine and scales were found, but Brown claimed ignorance regarding the contraband. Although Brown testified that numerous individuals had access to the same location, he did not testify that any of those individuals may have placed or did place the drugs there. Brown also provided explanations for having so much cash at the time of the search and for the necessity of having a surveillance system of the exterior of his home. Although officers discovered a child’s clothing in storage in the house, they did not discover evidence of any other person residing at the home, which was owned by Brown’s grandmother who did not reside there and was where Brown testified that he had resided since 2003.
