463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases

He acknowledged "the cocaine that was in that room
[i.e., the living room] [was his] as well."
247-248.)
(Tr. 2:
Ronald Mendes further testified concerning the
effects of "marijuana" and the effects of "coke" and
testified that he liked marijuana "better than coke."
(Tr. 2: 239.) However, he testified that he could
obtain a different "high" than what he got from smoking
plain marijuana when he would sprinkle "cocaine a
little bit on the weed" and that he would receive from
the combination of marijuana and cocaine "more than a
regular high." (Tr. 2:246.) See Commonwealth v.
Cantres, 405 Mass. 238, 246, 247 (1989) ("It is enough
that the witness have familiarity based on prior use or
sale"... [for] 'identification based on past use coupled
with present observation of the substance at hand will
suffice to establish the illicit nature of a suspected
substance.'"), quoting from United States v. Harrell,
737 F.2d 971, 987-979 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 1164 (1985); Commonwealth v. Villatoro, 76
Mass. App. Ct. 645, 652-654 (2010) (defendant's history
of marijuana use, allowed inference that he could
identify marijuana), cited in Commonwealth v.
42