It should, though the state makes a somewhat circular argument that failure to deliver the evidence wasn't significant since the evidence wasn't admissible anyway, not withstanding the facts that the claimed basis for excluding the evidence was that it hadn't been authenticated, and that the late delivery of the evidence denied the defense any opportunity to authenticate it.
Sounds like a good defense to me: “Yeah, I tried to rob that bank, but I didn’t get any money, so no harm no foul, eh?”