464 Mass. 566 - Appellant Montoya Brief - Mass Cases

to support a conviction". Commonwealth v. Dawson, 399
Ma s s. 465, 467 (1987) • Furthermore, the trial j
did not make a finding that any of officers were
qualified to testify as to the nature of the
substances. See Vasquez, 456 Mass. at p. 365.
Moreover, the officers " , not articulate how their
rtise permitted them to identi the substances'."
Commonwealth v. Charles, 456 Mass. 378, 382 (2010)
quoting from Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 76 Mass.
App. Ct. 229, 233 -(2010). No field tests were
performed, none of the witnesses was involved
gene ing the drug certi es, and tI [nJ one the
officers observed the fects of the substances on
anyone sting " Vasquez, supra at p. 364.
The last two findings of the motion judge
concerning packaging of the al ged contraband and
the location of a sophisticat hide (which the on
j found icularly important) are related as the
implicit assumption underlying these two findings is
that packaging of the alleged cont and and
location of hide are evidence of a modus operandi
of drug dealing cocaine as testified to by
Detect i ve Hyde. The testimony of Detective Hyde
44
i