Neither of the two irregularities in the grand jury process prejudiced the fairness of the proceedings. Because there was no prejudice to Aloysius, the superior court should not have dismissed the indictment. The decision of the superior court is REVERSED, the indictment is reinstated, and this case is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings on that indictment. 1 .See Soper v. State, 731 P.2d 587, 591-92 (Alaska App.1987) (stating the general rule); see also Frink v. State, 597 P.2d 154, 161 (Alaska 1979) (noting that even when inadmissible evidence is presented to the grand jury, the ensuing indictment should not be dismissed unless the inadmissible evidence was probably significant to the grand jury’s decision); Boggess v. State, 783 P.2d 1173, 1176 (Alaska App.1989) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 872 P.2d 189 (Alaska App.1994). 3 . See
holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that suppression of the evidence or dismissal of an indictment are not required to remedy a violation of  6103 holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient holding that an indictment will stand despite a violation of criminal rule 6 unless the violation contributed to the return of the indictment or otherwise gave rise to unfair prejudice holding that the critical fact prompting final disciplinary action is not the fact of conviction or indictment but the underlying conduct giving rise to that indictment or conviction citation omitted