control over all inferior courts” and the “power to issue writs of mandamus.” N.M. Const, art. VI, § 3. DISCUSSION Standards for Reviewing Challenges to Grand Jury Proceedings {12} Challenges arising from grand jury proceedings ordinarily fall into two categories: (1) challenges to the quality or sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury and (2) structural challenges involving the manner in which the grand jury process has been conducted. See State v. Ulibarri, 1999-NMCA-142, ¶¶ 12-13, 128 N.M. 546, 994 P.2d 1164, aff’d, 2000-NMSC-007, 128 N.M. 686, 997 P.2d 818. {13} A target’s ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury generally is limited to the review permitted by statute. See State v. Chance, 1923-NMSC-042, ¶ 8, 29 N.M. 34, 221 P. 183 (<HOLDING>). Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-6-11(A) (2003),
holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that courts cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence underlying an indictment unless there is some clear statutory authority to do so holding motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to rule 12b is not a device for a summary trial of the evidence the sole function of this motion is to test the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense