by statute and we review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss an indictment under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Vatne, 2003 SD 81, ¶ 8, 659 N.W.2d 380, 383. [¶ 9.] Carothers contends that the indictment should have been dismissed under SDCL 23A-8-2(3), which directs the court to dismiss an indictment “[w]hen it does not substantially conform to the requirements of this title.” Carothers claims that a requirement of the title is that the rules of evidence apply to grand jury proceedings. SDCL 23A-5-15. Even though the rules of evidence apply to grand jury proceedings, we have previously said that we “will not inquire into the legality or sufficiency of the evidence upon which an indictment is based.” Vatne, 2003 SD 31, ¶ 14, 659 N.W.2d at 384 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted). The rationale
holding that an indictment could not be dismissed based on claim that testimony was hearsay and incompetent holding that the district court properly dismissed an indictment where the parties argued the applicability of a statute based on a set of undisputed facts holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part