In State v. Cook, 330 N.J. Super. 395, 750 A.2d 91 (App.Div.2000), during the course of a homicide investigation, two eyewitnesses identified someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator of the crimes. The prosecutor did not present that evidence to the grand jury. Defendant argued that his motion to dismiss the indictment should have been granted by the trial judge because the identifications of another as the perpetrator were clearly exculpatory evidence under the Hogan standard. Cook, supra., 330 N.J. Super. at 410, 750 A.2d 91. The court rejected defendant's argument concluding the identifications of others were not clearly exculpatory because "they were contradicted by the testimony of three other witnesses who clearly identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the murder and robbery." Id. at 410-11, 750 A.2d 91. Noting that "(t)he sole issue before the grand jury is the determination of whether a prima facie case of guilt has been presented . . .", the court concluded that the testimony of those who positively identified the defendant was sufficient in light of the strengths of the state's case and the nature of the exculpatory evidence, thus the motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied by the trial court. Ibid.