¶1OPINION
¶2Peter Gaona appeals to this court from his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon (former AS 11.15.220).
¶3STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶4At the end of a night of drinking, Peter Gaona, age nineteen, wound up in the Frontier Saloon in Ketchikan. He had; according to his testimony, brought a handgun with him for self protection. In the Frontier Saloon, he ended up in an argument with Steve Lindberg which was witnessed by a friend of Lindberg’s, Al Spromberg. How the argument began is not clear, probably because Gaona, Lindberg, and Sprom-berg were all intoxicated. However, Gaona left the bar sometime after the argument and Lindberg soon followed. In the street outside the bar, Lindberg apparently advanced toward Gaona. Gaona fired four shots, and one of them hit Lindberg in the leg.
¶5Police Lieutenant Leighton saw the incident and arrested Gaona. Gaona was taken from the scene by Officer James Jenck. Gaona told Officer Jenck that “Lindberg was going to beat [me] up and [I] warned him.” Later Gaona was interviewed by Lt. Leighton. This taped interview was apparently never transcribed; therefore, we must construct its contents from the grand jury and the trial testimony. Lt. Leighton testified that Gaona said he had argued in the Frontier Bar with Lindberg over Gaona’s theft of some cocaine from a relative of Lindberg’s, and further argued over Lind-berg’s dancing at the Frontier with Gaona’s former girlfriend. Gaona told Lt. Leighton that he had told Lindberg in the bar that he was armed. Gaona said that “I didn’t want to do it,” that he was sorry for having shot Lindberg, and that he believed he would probably get twenty years. Gaona also told Lt. Leighton that he shot in the air several times before shooting Lindberg.
¶6The prosecution presented two witnesses to the grand jury: the victim Lindberg and *536Lt. Leighton. Consequently, the facts were presented in less detail than those outlined above. Nonetheless, some facts were presented which suggested Gaona’s theory of self defense. Lt. Leighton told the grand jury that when he first approached Gaona and Lindberg in the street, he thought he was observing a fight. Lt. Leighton related Gaona’s warning to Lind-berg that he had a gun. Lindberg told the grand jury that he and Gaona had argued in the bar and that when they left the bar, Gaona warned him not to come any closer. However, the prosecution did not introduce Gaona’s statement to Officer Jenck that “Lindberg was going to beat [me] up and [I] warned him,” or Gaona’s statements to Lt. Leighton that “I didn’t want to do it” and that he shot in the air several times.
¶7Just before deliberating, the grand jury asked the prosecutor about self defense. The exchange was as follows:
Grand Juror: If somebody actually means to do you bodily harm and you shoot even though it would be [sic] dangerous weapon — a lethal weapon of some sort — would you still be indicted under the same—
Prosecutor: What you’re going into— yeah — what you’re going into are possible defenses, explanations, contradictions.
Grand Juror: Yeah, but would you be considering—
Prosecutor: There’s always a question of self-defense, but that is a defense to be raised, if there is any question of self-defense here.
Grand Juror: So actually you’re just basing it on the evidence as presented.
Prosecutor: I’m presenting only the state’s case.
¶8The grand jury found a true bill and Gaona was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon after a jury trial.
¶9PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AT THE GRAND JURY
¶10Gaona raises two claims of prosecu-torial misconduct at the grand jury. First, he argues that the prosecutor failed to present exculpatory evidence which would support his claim of self defense.
¶11*537The Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure require motions to dismiss an indictment to be made before trial.
¶12We conclude that had Gaona filed his motion in a timely manner it would not have been difficult to reindict him in the event either the court or the prosecution believed his motion had merit. If we granted motions such as Gaona’s the prosecution would frequently be unfairly prejudiced. It is worth noting that Gaona was indicted in May of 1976. Witnesses who testified at the grand jury or trial may not be readily available to testify; certainly their recollection of the events which led to Gaona’s indictment has dimmed. If we allow attacks on indictments for the first time on appeal there would be a strong temptation for counsel to withhold these motions until appeal.
¶13An appellant who asks us to notice an issue as plain error bears a heavy burden to convince us that we should depart from the normal rule that pretrial motions should be filed before trial and passed upon by the trial court.
¶14EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
¶15Gaona argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not object to the alleged defects in the grand jury proceedings. In Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421, 424 (Alaska 1974), the supreme court confirmed that the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution
¶16A competent counsel does not necessarily have to raise every possible motion on behalf of a client. Pre-trial and trial strategies vary among different competent attorneys. We decline to hold that counsel’s failure to attack an indictment automatically renders his legal assistance incompetent or ineffective. Gaona’s trial counsel may have had good reason to conclude that a motion to dismiss the indictment would not have been beneficial to his client. As we indicated earlier, there is authority which severely limits a person’s ability to use deadly force to defend himself against an unarmed attack.
¶17The judgment is AFFIRMED.
¶18BRYNER, C. J., concurs.
¶19. Gaona was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Gaona has not appealed his sentence.
¶20. Gaona testified at trial that he had told Lt. Leighton that he shot Lindberg to protect himself from a serious beating.
¶21.In Frink v. State, 597 P.2d 154, 165 (Alaska 1979), the supreme court relied on Alaska R.Crim.P. 6(q) which reads as follows:
Sufñciency of Evidence. When the grand jury has reason to believe that other available evidence will explain away the charge, it shall order such evidence to be produced and for that purpose may require the prosecuting attorney to subpoena witnesses. An indictment shall not be found nor a presentment made upon the statement of a grand juror unless such grand juror is sworn and examined as a witness. The grand jury shall find an indictment when all the evidence taken together, if unexplained or uncontradicted, would warrant a conviction of the defendant.
¶22The supreme court, citing Johnson v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 248, 124 Cal.Rptr. 32, 539 P.2d 792, 794 (Cal.1975), pointed out that “[t]he grand jury cannot be expected to call for evidence of which it is kept ignorant.” The supreme court therefore found that the prosecutor had a duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. See also Preston v. State, 615 P.2d 594, 601-603 (Alaska 1980). Gaona also argues the prosecutor has a constitutional duty to present exculpatory evidence under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 8 of the Alaska Constitution which provides in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury....” Gaona also relies on the state constitutional due process clause, Article 1, § 7, which provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
¶23. In Coleman v. State, 553 P.2d 40, 47 (Alaska 1976), the court pointed out that the prosecutor “is required to act as the grand jury’s legal advisor, to aid but not interfere in its determination of the probability of guilt.” See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function § 3-3.5 at 3.48 (1980).
¶24. Alaska R.Crim.P. 47(b) provides:
Plain error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.
¶25. Alaska R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2) provides:
Pre-Trial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Any or all of the following shall be raised prior to trial:
(2) Defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or information (other than a failure to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense, which objections shall be noticed by the court at any time during pendency of the proceedings);
¶26. Alaska R.Crim.P. 12(e) provides:
Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by the defendant to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to section (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.
¶27. See, generally W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 53, at 391 (1972); AS 11.81.330 and AS 11.81.335.
¶28. Moreau v. State, 588 P.2d 275, 279-80 (Alaska 1978).
¶29. U.S.Const. Amend VI reads as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
¶30. Alaska Const. Art. 1, § 11, provides that an accused is “entitled ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
¶31. The Alaska Supreme Court in Risherquoted the above language from Beasley v. United States, 491 F.2d 687, 696 (6th Cir. 1974). See also Brown v. State, 601 P.2d 221, 233-234 (Alaska 1979).
¶32. See authority cited in note 8 supra.
¶33. “Lawyers may display a wide spectrum of ability and still have their performance fall within the range of competence displayed by one of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law. It is only when the ability is below the nadir of that range that we would hold it to constitute a deprivation of effective assist-anee of counsel. We are not condoning the second-guessing of trial counsel in making the myriad decisions encountered in a criminal trial, for it is a truism that hindsight furnishes 20-20 vision. All that is required of counsel is that his decisions, when viewed in the framework of trial pressures, be within the range of reasonable actions which might have been taken by an attorney skilled in the criminal law, regardless of the outcome of such decisions.”
¶34Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421, 424 (Alaska 1974).