Is there a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on accident as a defense?

On the evidence here, we conclude the trial court did not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on accident as a defense. "The accident defense is a claim that the defendant acted without forming the mental state necessary to make his actions a crime." (People v. Gonzales (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 382, 390; see also Pen. Code, 26, class Five ["All persons are capable of committing crimes except those . . . [] . . . [] . . . [p]ersons who committed the act or made the omission charged through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was no evil design, intention, or culpable negligence"].)

"It is well settled that a defendant has a right to have the trial court, on its own initiative, give a jury instruction on any affirmative defense for which the record contains substantial evidence [citation]evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the defendant [citation]unless the defense is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case [citation]." (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982.) Similarly, "even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and that are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case." (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047.)