In State v. Egler, 3d Dist. No. 4-07-22, 2008 Ohio 4053the appellant claimed that "because the indictment failed to specify specific acts, the prosecution was able to amend the indictment through a bill of particulars; and, that the trial court wrongfully denied his motion for review by the trial court in camera of the grand jury transcripts to determine the nature of the specific facts considered by the grand jury and included in the indictment." Id.at P10. The appellant was charged with ten counts of engaging in sexual conduct with a victim under the age of thirteen. The Court held that the indictment correctly stated offenses, which makes it valid on its face. Id. at P16. The appellant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. The Court then held that where an indictment is facially valid, a defendant is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury." Id. at P17.