In Brodes v. State, 279 Ga. 435 (614 SE2d 766) (2005), our Supreme Court found that it could "no longer endorse" the pattern jury instruction on the witness's "level of certainty," and " advised trial courts to refrain from informing jurors they may consider a witness's level of certainty when instructing them on the factors that may be considered in deciding the reliability of that identification." Id. at 442. The Court acknowledged the "critical importance of accurate jury instructions as 'the lamp to guide the jury's feet in journeying through the testimony in search of a legal verdict.'" Id. In Brodes, the Court noted that "the only evidence connecting Brodes to the crimes was the eyewitness identification of him by the two victims." Additionally, the Court considered that witnesses had not given the police a physical description of the perpetrator, were under stress while being robbed at gunpoint in the night time, the defendant was a stranger to the victims, one of the victims was unable to pick the defendant's photograph from a photographic array, and the other victim could only describe the weapon that was used. Id. Nevertheless, both victims stated at trial that they were positive the defendant was the robber. Id. at 437.