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.
) 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.