In what circumstances will a defendant be found to have conceded that he had committed a crime by failing to raise excuse or justification for violence against the victims?

In any event, even if we were to assume that the court's special instruction was erroneous, we would conclude that the error was harmless here. In Carella v. California, supra, 491 U.S. at pages 266 and 267, 109 S.Ct. at p. 2420, 2421, 105

Page 225

Moreover, in Connecticut v. Johnson, supra, 460 U.S. at p. 87, 103 S.Ct. at p. 977, 74 L.Ed.2d at pp. 834-835, the court held that a defendant may be found to have conceded the issue in question by the nature of the defense presented or by other conduct, in which event an error of this nature would not be prejudicial. In this case defendant conceded the unlawfulness of the use of violence against the victims by express concession as well as by failing to raise excuse or justification in any manner. Any error in the court's special instruction was therefore harmless.