In State v. Bundridge, 294 N.C. 45, 57-59, 239 S.E.2d 811, 820-21 (1978), the defendant argued that bloodstained clothing that had been collected from the defendant's residence was of no probative value because the State had failed to show that the defendant had worn the clothes on the night of the alleged crime or that the stains on the clothes were from the blood of the victim. Id. at 58, 239 S.E.2d at 820. Our Supreme Court rejected that argument and held the fact that there was no direct evidence showing that the defendant had in fact worn the clothing during the assault went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Id. at 58-59, 239 S.E.2d at 820. The Supreme Court in Bundridge explained: [I]n a criminal case, any evidence which sheds light upon the supposed crime is admissible. Evidence meets the test of relevancy if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to prove a fact in issue. Id. at 58, 239 S.E.2d at 820.