Is there a reasonable likelihood that a jury found that the written instruction on aiding and abetting had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict?

Estelle v. McGuire, 112 S.Ct. 475, 482 (1991) (citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis supplied). Thus, the real question here is whether it is "reasonably likely" that the jury applied the erroneous portion of the written instruction on aiding and abetting in a manner that "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Stated differently, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction according to its literal terms such that, upon finding that Underwood was present at the scene of the murder, and that he knew a crime was being committed, they found him guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting murder. If so, Underwood was entitled to habeas relief.