What is the test for a motion to dismiss a criminal charge under section 995 of the Criminal Code?

Defendant argues that these questions by the grand jurors amount to a request for instruction on an affirmative defense (supervening cause), and that the indictment should accordingly be dismissed, citing Cummiskey v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1036, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 551, 839 P.2d 1059 [defendant's section 995 motion should be granted if prosecutor misinstructs grand jury on necessary elements of crime or fails to instruct on defenses which, if believed, would result in no criminal liability]. Defendant primarily relies upon his previous argument regarding the jury instructions on proximate cause and supervening cause that were given, or not given, to the petit jury to support this position. As explained ante, the CALJIC instructions that were given sufficiently addressed both of these issues and the grand jury did not have to receive a special instruction on supervening cause. ²⁶ Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to section 995 was properly denied.