González, J.

¶ 1 It is generally not murder to kill another in self-defense. It may not be murder — though it is often a serious crime — to kill another by accident. Michael Henderson shot and killed Abubakar Abdi during an argument. Henderson was charged with felony murder based on second degree assault with a deadly weapon. Henderson contended that while acting in self-defense, he accidentally killed Abdi. The jury was instructed on the defense of justifiable homicide. The trial court did not instruct the jury on excusable homicide. Under the instructions given, the jury necessarily found that the shooting was neither self-defense nor accident when it found Henderson guilty of felony murder predicated on second degree assault. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court erred when it failed to give the excusable homicide instruction. We granted the State's petition for review.

¶ 2 The State argues that the excusable homicide instruction was properly rejected. We agree. Henderson was able to adequately argue his theory of the case under the proper instructions that were given. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand back to that court for further proceedings under RAP 13.7(b).

FACTS

¶ 3 On October 11, 2015, Henderson shot and killed 20-year-old Abdi. Abdi and his friends were socializing at a restaurant and, later, at a Shell gas station across the street. There, Abdi began arguing with Nekea Terrell. While Terrell was buying alcohol at the gas station, Abdi called her names and told her to hurry up. Terrell, Abdi, and Abdi's acquaintances continued to insult each other. One of Terrell's acquaintances tried to calm her down.

¶ 4 Terrell knew Henderson because he dated her cousin. Terrell testified at trial that at this point, Abdi was "getting really bold" and "pumped up." Report of Proceedings (RP) (May 23, 2016) at 155. She said they continued to argue and she thought she was going to have to fight a "dude." Id. at 156. Terrell said she was ready to fight Abdi and Abdi never claimed he was armed or displayed a weapon. Henderson joined the small group gathered around Abdi and Terrell as they argued.

¶ 5 Henderson, the people with him, and Abdi's group were "cussing each other out." RP (May 24, 2016) at 296. Nobody made overt threats, despite tension being high. To this point, no weapons were shown, seen, or talked about. Henderson testified that Abdi "flinched" his shoulders, lunged forward, moved his arms toward his waist, and seemed to reach for something in a pocket. RP (June 1, 2016) at 682. Henderson drew a handgun from his rear pants pocket, pointed it directly at Abdi, and pulled the trigger at close range. Abdi died almost instantly. The shooting was captured on surveillance video.

¶ 6 Henderson's reason for drawing the gun, whether he pulled the trigger intentionally or accidentally, and his objective when he fired the weapon were all in dispute at trial. The jury found him guilty of felony murder based on second degree assault with a deadly weapon. The Court of Appeals reversed, and we granted review.1

ANALYSIS

¶ 7 Since the trial court refused to give the instruction based on a ruling of law, our review is de novo. State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 771-72, 966 P.2d 883 (1998) (citing State v. Lucky, 128 Wn.2d 727, 731, 912 P.2d 483 (1996), overruled on other grounds by State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 544, 947 P.2d 700 (1997)).

¶ 8 The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. Jury instructions satisfy the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial if, taken as a whole, they accurately inform the jury of the relevant law and permit each party to argue their theory of the case. State v. Riley, 137 Wn.2d 904, 909, 976 P.2d 624 (1999) (quoting State v. Bowerman, 115 Wn.2d 794, 802 P.2d 116 (1990)). The adequacy of each instruction must be "evaluated in the context of the instructions as a whole." State v. Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 613 & n.56, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995) (citing State v. Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631, 654-55, 845 P.2d 289 (1993)). "A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury fully instructed on the defense theory of the case." State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 803, 872 P.2d 502 (1994) (citing State v. Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 191, 721 P.2d 902 (1986)).

¶ 9 Learned commentators have opined that "[u]nlike other defenses, the `defense' of excusable homicide adds little if anything to the jury's analysis." 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PRACTICE JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 15.01 cmt. at 242 (2016) (WPIC); see RCW 9A.16.030 ("Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent."). We elaborated in State v. Burt:

94 Wn.2d 108, 110-11, 614 P.2d 654 (1980).

¶ 10 In contrast, a justifiable homicide instruction — which, here, was requested and given — does add to the jury's analysis. It requires a jury to find that the defendant reasonably believed the person slain (or others who the defendant reasonably believed were acting in concert with the person slain) intended to commit a felony or to inflict death or great personal injury. RCW 9A.16.050(1); WPIC 16.02. This adds substance to the jury's analysis. Excusable homicide, by contrast, is merely descriptive. It does not create an affirmative defense. It is reserved, at most, for cases where the defendant accidentally killed a person without criminal negligence because, had there been criminal negligence, the slaying would be manslaughter in the second degree.2 See also WPIC 15.01 cmt. at 242 ("In many cases, an instruction on excusable homicide will confuse the jury without providing any meaningful guidance.").

¶ 11 The Court of Appeals held it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to give an excusable homicide instruction. It found that because there was some evidence of accident and because a defendant is entitled to control his defense, the refusal to give the instruction was reversible error. But "[j]ury instructions must be considered in their entirety to determine if there is reversible error in a specific instruction." State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154, 167-68, 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (citing Caruso v. Local Union 690 of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 107 Wn.2d 524, 533, 730 P.2d 1299 (1987)). Read as a whole, these instructions adequately told the jury the intent, conduct, and necessary lack of accident it must find beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Henderson's accident defense was wholly and adequately presented to the jury in the instructions as given. Specifically:

Clerk's Papers at 54-57, 59 (emphasis added).

¶ 12 The jury instructions adequately and properly informed the jury of the applicable law. Henderson was able to argue his theory of the case. And he did. Defense counsel presented evidence of accident through Henderson's own testimony on direct and redirect. Defense counsel also argued accident in his closing argument.

¶ 13 Had the jury doubted that Henderson intentionally shot Abdi, it could not have convicted under these instructions. If the jury doubted that Henderson intended to shoot Abdi, a guilty verdict on second degree assault with deadly weapon would necessarily be precluded. If the jury found the shooting was accidental, it could not have found Henderson intended to shoot the gun and could not have convicted. Read as a whole, the instructions given in this case allowed Henderson to argue his theory of the case, and he did.

CONCLUSION

¶ 14 We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to give an excusable homicide jury instruction. Henderson was able to adequately argue his theory of the case under the instructions given. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals to consider the remaining arguments Henderson raised below.

WE CONCUR:

Fairhurst, C.J.

Johnson, J.

Madsen, J. (result only)

Owens, J.

Stephens, J.

Wiggins, J.

Gordon McCloud, J.

Yu, J.