Was the reasonable doubt instruction constitutionally deficient thereby requiring reversal of Watkins' conviction?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Constitution requires the Government to persuade a jury “beyond reasonable doubt” in order to sustain a conviction. Over Watkins’ objection, the reasonable doubt instruction charged the jury to subjectively consider “life’s most important decisions” when considering whether reasonable doubt existed. Was the reasonable doubt instruction constitutionally deficient thereby requiring reversal of Watkins’ conviction?