Whether the jury instruction misdescribes the standard of proof, resulting in a reasonable likelihood of unconstitutional application

question presented is whether this instructional language so misdescribes the standard that there is a reasonable likelihood that jurors have unconstitutionally applied the standard of proof: The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to prove any fact and would justify a verdict in accordance with such testimony even if a number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary if, after consideration of all of the evidence, you believe that the single witness is more accurate and more truthful. The test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence but which witness and which evidence you find is most accurate and otherwise trustworthy in determining whether or not the State has met its burden of proof considering all of the evidence in the case. (emphasis added).