Does the law recognize the defense of accident?

[Citation.]" (People v. Calban (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 578, 584; see 26, par. Five.) CALCRIM No. 3404 embodies this principle. (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996.) That the law recognizes the defense of accident does not mean the trial court has a sua sponte obligation to instruct thereon, however, since a defendant presents evidence of accident in an attempt to negate or rebut the prosecution's proof of an element of the offense. (Ibid.) Statutory provisions codifying the defense of accident " 'are now unnecessary restatements, in a defense format, of the requirements of the definitional elements of an offense. . . .' [Citation.] A trial court's responsibility to instruct on accident therefore generally extends no further than the obligation to provide, upon request, a pinpoint instruction relating the evidence to the mental element required for the charged crime." (Id. at p. 997.)

Defendants recognize the trial court here had no sua sponte duty to instruct on accident, and so frame their claim of error as one of ineffective assistance of counsel. As previously set out in more detail, ante, in order to establish such a claim, defendants must show both deficient performance and prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability of a more favorable result. (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1003.)

"A trial court must give a pinpoint instruction, even when requested, only if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 214-215.) We will presume defendants would have been entitled to an instruction on accident upon request (see People v. Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 998, fn. 3), although we have serious reservations on this point.