In People v. Bello (92 NY2d 523, 705 NE2d 1209, 683 NYS2d 168 [1998]), the Court of Appeals, addressing the issue of the legal sufficiency of evidence before the grand jury, stated the following regarding the nature of a prima facie case: "To dismiss an indictment on the basis of insufficient evidence before a Grand Jury, a reviewing court must consider whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury. Legally sufficient evidence is defined in CPL 70.10 (1) as 'competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged.' In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (id. at 525-526). In People v Bello, the defendant, when approached by an undercover officer who inquired about buying crack cocaine, responded by asking the officer how many bags she wanted, and if she was a police officer. The undercover officer then accompanied an accomplice of the defendant inside the building in front of which all three individuals had been standing, and purchased crack cocaine. Analogizing the defendant's conduct to that of a steerer or "go-between" for a buyer and a seller, the Court of Appeals held that this evidence established that the defendant acted as a "screener" for the sale, and was therefore sufficient to support an indictment for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Court observed that the defendant "was not merely acting as a source of general information where drugs could be purchased" since "his presence was inextricably linked to the drug sale itself." ( People v Bello, supra at 527.) The Court addressed the evidence required to establish a prima facie case for participation in the sale of drugs. The key to the analysis, the court said, was whether a defendant "intentionally and directly assisted in achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise - the alleged sale of a narcotic drug". (92 N.Y.2d at 526.) In that case the defendant's response to the undercover's request for crack - "how many you looking for?" and "are you a cop?" - was found sufficient to demonstrate defendant's intentional involvement with the transaction. The court found such conduct analogous to that of "steerers" and "go-betweens".