In State v. Cannon, 130 Wn.2d 313, 922 P.2d 1293 (1996), the defendant claimed that the case against him should have been dismissed because the State mishandled the first sample of his blood and was slow in producing the results from the DNA tests on his blood. The Court rejected Cannon's argument that he was prejudiced by the State's dilatory actions because Cannon's counsel was "placed on notice from the time of charging that the State intended to introduce scientific evidence relating to blood samples . . . in order to tie Cannon to the crime." Cannon, 130 Wn.2d at 329. Thus, the Court concluded that no new facts came to light as a result of the State's tardy production of the DNA test results. Id. at 329.