He did not—and clearly could not—contend that such conduct would fall outside of the ambit of the act prong. See, e.g., State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 601–605, 222 A.3d 105 (2019), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 982, 242 A.3d 104 (2020). The record now before us, however, differs only in degree from that hypothetical.

Therefore, even without Ricciuti's testimony, other evidence presented by the state served to bolster Pugh's testimony. Second, even though we acknowledge that the fact that Pugh had an agreement with the state may have caused some jurors to question his credibility, assessing witness credibility is solely the function of the jury; see, e.g., State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 621, 222 A.3d 105 (2019), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 982, 242 A.3d 104 (2020) ; and it was well within the jury's province to find Pugh's testimony credible even if he had a cooperation agreement with the state. Third, although Ricciuti's testimony may have related to the ultimate issue in the case, it was not testimony directed at Pugh's credibility or even his testimony.

Kathryn W. Bare, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 194 Conn. App. 598, 222 A.3d 105 (2020), is denied.

) State v. Michael T., 194 Conn.App. 598, 617, 222 A.3d 105 (2019), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 982, 242 A.3d 104 (2020).

(Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Michael T., 194 Conn. App. 598, 621, 222 A.3d 105 (2019), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 982, 242 A.3d 104 (2020). As explained previously, Dr. Sherry testified on redirect examination, consistent with his testimony during direct examination, that the victim reported directly to him that she lost consciousness.

Although the defendant argues that Simpson's testimony was compromised because he received a reduced sentence for a separate matter in return for his testimony, these facts were presented to the jury, and it would be well within the jury's province to find Simpson's testimony credible despite his cooperation agreement with the state. See State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 621, 222 A.3d 105 (2019) ("[i]t is the [jury's] exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses" (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 982, 242 A.3d 104 (2020). Accordingly, even if we were to assume that the court erred in admitting the defendant's July 19 and 20, 2017 statements into evidence, we conclude that any such error was rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant's guilt.

" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 611, 222 A.3d 105 (2019), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 982, 242 A.3d 104 (2020). The defendant argues that Nivakoff's testimony, answering "[y]es, he did" to the question of whether David had identified items in the video as his, was inadmissible hearsay.

Although the defendant argues that Pugh's testimony should be discredited because he was a compromised witness, witness credibility is solely the function of the jury, and it was well within the jury's province to find Pugh's testimony credible. See State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 621, 222 A.3d 105 (2019) ("it is the [jury's] exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we conclude that, even if we were to assume that the trial court improperly admitted Flockhart's testimony, the defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving that the admission of his testimony more probably than not affected the verdict.

" (Citations omitted.) State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 611, 222 A.3d 105 (2019). The medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule is codified in § 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence : "A statement made for purposes of obtaining a medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to the medical diagnosis or treatment."

" (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Michael T. , 194 Conn. App. 598, 617, 222 A.3d 105 (2019). Accordingly, we decline to review this claim.