Opinion of the Court by
ACOBA, J.
We hold that because the charge of Excessive Speeding, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-105(a)(l) (Supp.2010), against Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Ricardo Apollonio (Petitioner) did not allege that Petitioner acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly it failed to allege the requisite state of mind. State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48, 56, 276 P.3d 617, 625 (2012). Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, we vacate the August 22, 2012 judgment of the ICA, which affirmed the August 23, 2011 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment of the district court of the first circuit1 (the court) and the court’s aforesaid judgment, and remand the case to the court for dismissal without prejudice. Because of the likelihood of retrial, we also conclude that Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (Respondent) failed to lay an adequate foundation to admit the laser instrument (laser gun or laser) reading of Petitioner’s vehicle’s speed into evidence.
[355]*355i.
A.
On August 23, 2011, Petitioner was orally arraigned and charged in the court with excessive speeding, as aforesaid. The charge alleged as follows:
On or about July 1st, 2010, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai'i, you did drive a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding the applicable state or county speed limit by 30 miles per hour or more by driving 76 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone, thereby violating Section 291C-105, subsection (a)(l)(C)( [2]) of the [HRS], as you have had one prior conviction within a five-year period.
Petitioner did not object to the oral charge.2
The HPD officer involved (the officer) testified that on July 1, 2010, he cited Petitioner for excessive speeding. On that date, a LTI 20-20 laser gun was used to measure the speed of Petitioner’s vehicle.
The officer was trained in October 2006 by Sergeant Ryan Nishibun. His training consisted of “class work, going over the operator’s manual, and hands-on time with the laser itself.” He maintained that the operator’s manual was “provided by [LTI].” Defense counsel objected to this testimony due to “lack of personal knowledge and hearsay.” The court overruled the objection, stating that “those issues have been resolved in some other case.”3
According to the officer, the manual stated that four tests4 were necessary to establish that the laser gun was working properly. All four tests were performed on the date in question and indicated the laser was working properly. The officer stationed himself on the shoulder of Kamehameha Highway south of Punalau Place. The speed limit in the area was thirty-five miles per hour (mph). His laser gun indicated that Petitioner’s vehicle was traveling at a speed of 76 mph. Based on the speed reading, Petitioner’s vehicle was stopped and Petitioner cited.
On cross-examination, the officer explained that the people who trained him were “all HPD officers,” and that “there was nobody from LTI present.” He related that the front cover of the manual “may have” had the HPD emblem stamped on it. The manual was provided by an HPD officer. He “[did not] know the person who wrote the manual,” and “[did not] know” if the manual was “written or compiled by the [HPD].”
Based on this testimony, Petitioner renewed his motion to strike the speed reading based on a lack of foundation. Petitioner argued that the officer “[did] not recall what the manual looks like,” “[did] not know who prepared the manual,” and was “not able to say where or what the manual was prepared in accordance with.” The court rejected the motion, stating that “[t]he court has also heard that that was [sic] the manuals provided by HPD in conjunction with LTI as part of [the officer’s] training at the [police] academy. So the court will give it its due weight.”
Petitioner continued cross-examination “with a few questions based on the court’s ruling.” The officer indicated he “assume[d] that somebody [from LTI] had to have provided [the manual],” but that he “[did not] know personally whether anybody from LTU [356]*356provided these manuals to [HPD].” (Emphases added). Further, “[w]hen [he] testified on direct examination [that he was] ... trained in accordance with the manual that LTI provided, that was just based on [his] assumption that somebody from LTI must have provided [the manual].” (Emphasis added.) Petitioner then asked the witness about the maintenance of the laser gun. The officer testified that he had “no idea” if there were “any software upgrades that would have been provided” for the laser gun.
On redirect examination, the officer testified that he “pass[ed] the [training] course” provided by HPD, and was “qualified to use the [laser gun].” Defense counsel objected that the officer did not have personal knowledge regarding whether or not he was qualified. The court overruled the objection. Petitioner conducted recross-examination and then renewed his motion to strike, arguing that the officer “has no personal knowledge [of] who provided the manual.” The court again denied the motion.
B.
Petitioner testified that on July 1, 2010, he was traveling northbound on Kamehameha Highway. He explained that before being pulled over he was “looking at his [speedometer] the whole time” and that he was never traveling faster than 60 mph. He also recounted that he was speeding because “he had to [use] the bathroom really bad.” On cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that he did not know whether his speedometer was working properly.
C.
In closing argument, Petitioner stated “that [the officer] testified on direct that he was trained in accordance with the manufacturer’s speeification[s],” but that on cross-examination, [the officer] admitted that “he had no personal knowledge as to whether or not he actually was.” Petitioner also contended that the excessive speeding statute required Respondent to demonstrate that Petitioner recklessly traveled 30 mph faster than the speed limit, and because Petitioner testified that his speedometer indicated he was traveling at 60 mph, Respondent had not established that Petitioner was reckless as the statute required.
D.
The court found Petitioner guilty as charged, holding that it “heard credible testimony from [the officer] regarding his training and qualifications,” and that the officer “followed the manufacturer’s instructions” to ensure that the laser gun was working properly. Addressing mens rea, the court found that the relevant state of mind was “intentional, knowing, or reckless,” and that “the court can infer from the circumstances that traveling at that speed, at the minimum, is reckless.”
II.
Petitioner appealed to the ICA. According to Petitioner, the only evidence introduced regarding the manufacturer’s recommendations for testing the laser gun or training officers was provided by the manual, and the officer did not have personal knowledge that the manual was provided by LTI. On this basis, Petitioner argued that Respondent failed to lay an adequate foundation for introducing the speed reading from the laser gun.
Petitioner also maintained that an adequate foundation was not laid because State v. Manewa, 115 Hawai'i 343, 167 P.3d 336 (2007), required Respondent to introduce evidence that “the instrument has been inspects ed and serviced as required by the manufacturer.” (Citing State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai'i 204, 217, 216 P.3d 1227, 1240 (2009) (Acoba, J. concurring).)
The ICA held that adequate foundation had been established to admit the speed reading. The ICA noted that the officer received eight hours of training from the HPD, “confirmed that during training he was provided with a training manual, which he acknowledged was provided by [LTI] ” and testified that during training he was “taught [four] tests recommended by the manufactur[357]*357er to determine whether the laser was working properly.” State v. Apollonio, No. CAAP-11-0000695, 128 Hawai'i 129, 2012 WL 2894715, at *2 (App. July 16, 2012). According to the ICA, “[ejvidence from [the officer’s] testimony” “confirmed that he performed these four tests on the laser gun on July 1, 2010, and that the results of the tests indicated that the laser was operating correctly.” Id.
Further, the officer explained that the manual he received as a part of his training “ ‘said Operator’s Manual, LTI 20-20 Operator’s Manual,”’ although “[the officer] later agreed that the manual cover may also have stated ‘Honolulu Police Department’ [or contained an HPD logo].” Id. He “could not definitely say that the manual was not written or compiled by HPD.” Id. The ICA concluded that, “[i]n light of the foregoing, the officer’s testimony was sufficient to establish that ‘the nature and extent of [his] training ... meets the requirements indicated by the manufacturer.’” Id. (Quoting Assaye, 121 Hawai'i at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238.)
Addressing Manewa, the ICA held that once the laser is tested in accordance with procedures recommended by the manufacturer, “the Assaye majority did not require any further showing of inspection and service as required by the manufacturer.” Id. Therefore, the ICA rejected Petitioner’s argument that Respondent was required to demonstrate that the manufacturer had properly serviced the laser gun. Id.
III.
Petitioner presents the following questions in his Application:
1. Whether the ICA’s order affirming [Petitioner’s] conviction constitutes an obvious inconsistency with [this court’s] April 12, 2012 decision in [Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48, 276 P.3d 617].
2. Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that [Respondent] laid sufficient foundation for the admission of the laser gun reading.
On November 7, 2012, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Application (Response). On November 13, 2012, Petitioner filed a Reply.
IV.
In connection with his first question, Petitioner argues that “[t]he oral charge [ ] failed to allege the intentional, knowing, and reckless states of mind required to alert the defendant[ ] of precisely what [he] needs to defend against to avoid a conviction.”5 (Citing Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i at 56, 276 P.3d at 625.) Additionally, Petitioner argues that “the oral charge was fatally defective under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(d),”6 because “state of mind was an ‘essential fact,’ which was required to be alleged.” Finally, according to Petitioner, due to the lack of mens rea in the charge, “the [] court lacked jurisdiction over the case.” (Citing State v. Cummings, 101 Hawai'i 139, 142, 63 P.3d 1109, 1112 (2003).)
In its Response, Respondent argues that “[t]he Nesmith majority’s holding that mens rea must be alleged in a charge was based on its reasoning that ‘a charge omitting the mens rea requirements would not alert a defendant that negligently operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant ... for instance is not an offense recognized [by statute].’ ” (Quoting Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i at 56, 276 P.3d at 625.) “In other words,” Respondent contends, Nesmith held that the “state of mind must be included in the charge to ‘alert the defendants [ ] [of] precisely what they needed to defend against to avoid a [358]*358conviction.’ ” (Quoting Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i at 56, 276 P.3d at 625.)
Respondent observes that Petitioner’s “defense was that he was never aware that he was driving his vehicle more than sixty [mph].” According to Respondent, Petitioner’s counsel stated the correct state of mind requirements during closing argument and noted that “this is not a negligence case.” Respondent argues that, therefore, Petitioner “was clearly aware of precisely what he needed to defend against [to avoid] a conviction.” Thus “his constitutional rights were not adversely affected.”7
In Nesmith, this court cited with approval Elliott, in which the petitioner had challenged the sufficiency of the oral charge for the first time on appeal, arguing that the oral charge did not include a mens rea element. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i at 56, 276 P.3d at 625 (“[Elliott] provides an illustration of how omission of facts in a charge can render a charge deficient.”) Nesmith stated that, as a result, Elliott “liberally reviewed the oral charge in favor of its validity.” Id. However, “[e]ven under a liberal review, [this court] held [in Elliott ] that the charge could not be reasonably construed to state the offense of resisting arrest,” because “the requisite state of mind was omitted.” Id.
In this ease, as in Elliott, Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the oral charge for the first time on appeal, and therefore the charge must be construed liberally in favor of its validity. Id. As in Elliott, the instant charge omitted the requisite state of mind. Analogous to Elliott, then, the excessive speeding charge cannot be “reasonably construed to state an offense.” Id. Nesmith therefore mandates dismissal without prejudice. Id.
Respondent argues that Nesmith supports a contrary result, because Nesmith holds that a charge is only deficient if defendants lack the notice necessary to avoid a conviction. In State v. Elliott, however, this court noted that the defendant “has not indicated how she was surprised or prejudiced by the omissions, and the record does not show that she was hampered in her defense.” 77 Hawai'i 309, 311, 884 P.2d 372, 374 (1994) (brackets omitted). Nevertheless, Elliott held that “with respect to the resisting arrest count, the requisite state of mind was omitted from the charge,” and therefore “the oral charge at issue [was] fatally defective.” Id. at 313, 884 P.2d at 376. Similarly, in this ease, the charge omitted the requisite state of mind, and therefore it cannot be “reasonably construed to state [an] offense.” Id.
Less than ten months ago this court, in a unanimous opinion,8 held that the failure to allege a requisite state of mind results in dismissal without prejudice:
In Nesmith, this court reasoned that ‘state of mind requirements, though not an element of an offense’ were required to be included in the charges against the defendants in order ‘to alert the defendants of precisely what they needed to defend against to avoid a conviction.’ 127 Hawai'i at 56, 276 P.3d at 625 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Nesmith held that [if a] state of mind [is not] included in a charge[] the case [is] dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 54, 276 P.3d at 623. Because the charge here did not contain the requisite state of mind, as the State concedes, Nesmith mandates dismissal without prejudice.
[359]*359Gonzalez, 128 Hawai'i at 324, 288 P.3d at 798.9 Accordingly, we adhere to this core principle: A charge that fails to charge a requisite state of mind cannot be construed reasonably to state an offense and thus the charge is dismissed without prejudice because it violates due process.10 Elliott, 77 Hawai'i at 313, 884 P.2d at 376; see also Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i at 56, 276 P.3d at 625 (“In Elliott, the petitioner challenged the sufficiency of this oral charge for the first time on appeal.... Even under a liberal review, we held that the charge could not be reasonably construed to state the offense of resisting arrest.”).
V.
Due to the likelihood of retrial, Petitioner’s argument that Respondent failed to lay an adequate foundation for the introduction of the speed reading from the laser gun may be addressed in part to prevent future error. In order to lay an adequate foundation for the speed reading from a laser gun, the State must demonstrate (1) that the accuracy of the laser gun was tested according to procedures recommended by the manufacturer, Assaye, 121 Hawai'i at 213, 216 P.3d at 1236, and (2) that “the nature and extent of an officer’s training in the operation of a laser gun [met] the requirements indicated by the manufacturer.” Id. at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238. Petitioner argues that neither requirement was satisfied here. He also asserts that Respondent failed to introduce evidence that the laser gun was “inspect[ed]” or service[d] by the manufacturer,” as required by Manewa, 115 Hawai'i at 354, 167 P.3d at 347.
Petitioner advances three arguments suggesting that, under the first prong of the Assaye test, Respondent did not establish that the laser gun was tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. First, Petitioner argues that the officer’s knowledge of the four tests was based upon “reading the manual that was never offered or admitted into evidence.” Thus, according to Petitioner, “his testimony was based upon hearsay[11] — the contents that he obtained from the manual were statements, other than statements made by him while testifying, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — that the manufacturer, LTI, recommended these four tests to ensure that the device was in proper working order.”
Second, Petitioner argues that “[the officer] assumed the manual was published by LTI,” but he was “trained by an HPD officer, he received the manual from the training officer, and the manual’s cover was imprinted only with the words ‘Operator’s Manual’ and possibly an HPD logo.” Additionally, “[the officer] admitted that he did not know who provided the manual to HPD, whether the [360]*360manual was written or compiled by HPD, and that he never met anyone from LTI.” Petitioner declares that thus, “[the officer’s] testimony that the tests were recommended by the manufacturer should not have been admissible for lack of personal knowledge.”
Third, Petitioner contends that the best evidence rule required Respondent to introduce the manual itself into evidence. According to Petitioner, HRE Rule 100212 states that “ ‘to prove the content of a writing ... the original writing ... is required’ ” and here “the content of the manual was the veiy evidence the State relied upon to establish that LTI had recommended the four tests.”
Regarding training under the second prong of the Assaye test, Petitioner argues that Respondent “failed to adduce any evidence as to whether the [officer’s] training ... met the requirements indicated by the manufacturer. In fact, [Respondent] did not present any evidence as to what LTI even requires in the training in the operation [sic] of the laser gun.” (Emphasis in original.)
Finally, with respect to Manewa, Petitioner asserts that this court held that an inadequate foundation was laid when a chemist “lacked the personal knowledge that an [analytical balance] had been properly calibrated,” and “merely assumed that the manufacturer’s service representative had done so.” Petitioner then cites the concurring opinion in Assaye as holding that “Manewa ‘requires not only that the State show that there is an accepted manufacturer’s procedure ... but also to show that the instrument has been inspected and serviced as required by the manufacturer.’” (Quoting Assaye, 121 Hawai'i at 217, 216 P.3d at 1240 (Acoba, J., concurring).)
In its Response, Respondent argues that all of Petitioner’s evidentiary arguments other than its personal knowledge objection are waived, because they were not raised before the ICA. As to personal knowledge, Respondent relies on the arguments made before the ICA, where it maintained that the officer’s testimony that the manual was provided by LTI was a “reasonable inference,” and that other evidence linked LTI to the manual, such as the fact that the laser gun was manufactured by LTI and the title of the manual was the “LTI 20-20 Operator’s Manual.”
Further, Respondent contends that “[Petitioner’s] exact argument [regarding the best evidence rule] was recently rejected in another case.” (Citing State v. Jervis, No. 30463, 125 Hawai'i 30, 2011 WL 1713501 (App. May 5, 2011) (SDO).) In Jervis, the ICA reasoned that the best evidence rule did not apply because “[the officer’s] testimony about the manual was not adduced to prove the contents of the manual, but rather to establish foundation for his testimony.” Jervis, 2011 WL 1713501 at *1 (citing Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Stites, 258 F.3d 1016, 1023 (9th Cir.2001); Smith v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 814 F.2d 1481, 1486 (10th Cir.1987); United States v. Carlock, 806 F.2d 535, 551 (5th Cir.1986); Lang v. Cullen, 725 F.Supp.2d 925, 953-54 (C.D.Cal.2010)).
With respect to Manewa, Respondent argued that there, this court held that the State had established that a “[Gas chromato-graph mass spectrometer]” was working properly because an expert “testified that he personally conducted a ‘routine check’ ‘each and every morning’ ‘to ensure that all the parameters are within the manufacturer’s specifications.’ ” (Quoting Manewa, 115 Hawai'i at 354, 167 P.3d at 347.) Respondent contended that, therefore, establishing that a “routine cheek” was performed is enough to establish that a device is working. Lastly, Respondent maintained that in the instant case “it was never established at trial whether there was in fact a manufacturer’s service representative who periodically calibrated the laser gun,” and in the absence of such evidence “the State is not required to show that the laser gun ‘had been properly eali-[361]*361brated by the manufacturer’s servicing representative.’ ” (Quoting Manewa, 115 Hawai'i at 354, 167 P.3d at 347.)
VI.
Petitioner argues that “[a]bsent [the officer’s] assumption that LTI might have provided the manual ... there is nothing in evidence to support that [the tests used to verify the gun’s accuracy] were recommended by LTI.” We conclude that in this respect, admission of the officer’s testimony as evidence was wrong. See Kealoha v. County of Hawai'i, 74 Haw. 308, 319-20, 844 P.2d 670, 676 (1993) (“When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard.”).13
HRE Rule 602 provides that “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.” The Commentary to HRE Rule 602 explains that, “ ‘Personal knowledge,’ for purposes of this rale, means that the witness perceived the event about which he testifies.” In other words, witnesses may not testify based on “guesswork” or “speculation,” such as when the witness concludes that a fact “must have” been true. See Addison M. Bowman, Hawai'i Rules of Evidence Manual § 602-l[5] (2012) (hereinafter Bowman, HRE Manual).
Here, the officer’s testimony that the manual was provided by LTI was based on “guesswork” and “speculation.” As he acknowledged, the officer did not “know personally whether anybody from LTI provided [the] manuain,” but “assumed that somebody from LTI must have provided it.” The only individuals present during the officer’s training were HPD officers. The manual was provided by “the traffic division instructors that were training [the officer].” Thus, “nobody from LTI gave [him] the manual.” The officer recounted that he had “[n]ever met a representative from [LTI].” Finally, the officer confirmed that he “[didn’t] know personally whether anybody from LTI provided these manuals to [HPD].” In other words, the officer had no personal knowledge that the manual was provided by LTI, or was an LTI manual.
Additionally, the officer’s testimony regarding the manual’s appearance did not connect the manual to LTI. “[T]he only thing that [he could] recall about the manual” was that it said “Operator’s Manual” on its cover and that it “may have a[n] HPD logo.” Although the officer did state that the manual’s cover read “LTI 20-20 Operator’s Manual,” this indicated only that the manual concerned the laser gun designated “LTI 20-20,” and not that LTI produced the manual. In sum, the officer provided no testimony as to the manual itself that would suggest that it was from LTI.
Finally, the officer conceded that he did not have personal knowledge regarding who wrote or compiled the manual. The officer did not know “if the manual ... that may or may not be stamped with the [HPD] logo was [362]*362[sic] written or compiled by the [HPD].” He did not “know the person who wrote the manual.” The officer had no verifiable basis for concluding that the manual was provided by LTI.14
Thus, nothing in evidence was “sufficient to support a finding” that the officer had personal knowledge of the fact as testified to on direct, see HRE Rule 602, that the manual was “provided by [LTI], the manufacturer of [the] LTI 20-20.” Respondent itself noted that the officer’s statement on direct examination was based on the inference that the manual “must have” been provided by LTI. Rule 602 prohibits precisely such an inference. That inference, without any basis in fact, must be categorized as guesswork. See Bowman, HRE Manual at § 602-1[5] (noting that the personal knowledge rule is violated when a witness concludes that a fact “mus-ta,” i.e., “must have,” been true). Because the officer lacked personal knowledge that the manual was “provided by” LTI, there was no evidence establishing that the four tests performed by the officer were recommended by the manufacturer. Therefore, the court erred in concluding that the four tests were recommended by the manufacturer.
Respondent apparently maintains that even without the officer’s testimony, the evidence supported the conclusion that the manual was provided by LTI, essentially because the laser gun was manufactured by LTI and the cover of the manual read “LTI 20-20 Operator’s Manual.” Contrary to the court’s finding, there was no evidence connecting LTI to the manual itself. As discussed supra, the fact that “LTI” was in the manual’s title indicated only that the manual concerned the laser designated “LTI 20-20,” and not that LTI produced the manual. Evidence regarding the manual — the officer’s testimony that the HPD logo was on the cover and that the manual was provided to him by an HPD officer — implied that the manual was compiled, not by LTI, but by the HPD. Hence, the court erred by concluding that the manual was provided by LTI.
Respondent’s failure to link the manual to the laser gun’s manufacturer resolves Petitioner’s contention that Respondent failed to satisfy the first prong of As-saye. Petitioner’s arguments regarding the hearsay rule and best evidence rule were not raised in Petitioner’s Opening Brief before the ICA, and are therefore waived. Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(7) (“Points not argued may be deemed waived.”).
VII.
Petitioner also asserts that Respondent failed to satisfy the second prong of Assaye, which requires the State to prove that an officer’s training in the operation of a laser conformed to the manufacturer’s requirements. 121 Hawai'i at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238. To recount, Respondent argues as it did before the ICA that Assaye does not require the State to set forth the manufacturer’s requirements for officer training, but instead “implicitly teaches that it is difficult to discern how anyone can use the laser gun properly without any training or instruction.” (Emphasis in original.) The officer’s testimony that he received eight hours of training, according to Respondent, met that requirement. To the contrary, Assaye held that the State must establish that an officer’s training satisfied the laser manufacturer’s requirements. 121 Hawai’i at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238.
Logically, this requires a showing as to both (1) the training requirements set forth by the manufacturer, and (2) the training actually received by the operator of the laser gun. We have said before that this showing cannot be met simply by describing the officer’s training. See id. at 215-16, 216 P.3d at 1238-39 (holding that although an [363]*363officer testified that he was “certified” after taking a “four hour class,” the State “ha[d] not shown whether the training that [the officer] received [met] the requirements of the manufacturer of the laser gun”) (internal quotations omitted). Consequently, Respondent could not demonstrate that the officer’s training met the manufacturer’s requirements because the only evidence of those requirements was the manual, and there was no evidence linking the manual to LTI.
Respondent also asserts that because in closing argument Petitioner “conceded that [the officer] testified on direct [examination] that he was trained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification,” and that “the specification was derived from the manual itself,” Petitioner cannot now argue that [the officer’s] training was insufficient.15 But read in its entirety, Petitioner’s closing argument demonstrates that Respondent’s contention is incorrect. Petitioner argued that on cross-examination, the officer admitted that although he “testified on direct examination that he was trained in accordance with the manual that LTI provided,” that “was just based on [his] assumption that somebody from LTI must have provided it.” Thus, Petitioner’s “concession” did not preclude the argument that the officer had only speeulat-ed as to who provided the manual upon which his training was based.16
VIII.
According to Petitioner, the concurring opinion in Assaye correctly interprets Mane-wa, and under the concurrence, Respondent must also demonstrate that the laser gun was serviced by a representative of the manufacturer to lay an adequate foundation for the speed reading taken from the laser gun. In this case, there is no clear evidence in the record with respect to the periodic servicing of the laser guns. Petitioner asked the officer whether the laser gun was under warranty and required periodic software updates, but he replied that he was “unaware” of any such requirement. Thus, Petitioner’s question regarding Manewa need not be resolved here.
IX.
Based on the foregoing, the August 22, 2012 judgment of the ICA, which affirmed the court’s August 23, 2011 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment and the court’s aforesaid judgment are vacated and the case remanded to the court with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice.