*182The defendant, Ronald G. Smith, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree *183in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a(a)(1)(A), six counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21(a)(2), six counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21(a)(1), two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(2), and three counts of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71(a)(1). On appeal, the defendant, relying upon Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1976), claims that the state violated his constitutional right to remain silent when it introduced evidence of the defendant's post- Miranda silence.1 We conclude that any claimed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant met the victim2 between November, 2007 and November, 2008, when the victim was nine years old. At that time, the victim lived in an apartment in Hartford with his mother, his grandmother, and his younger sibling, who was the child of the defendant and the victim's mother. The defendant was dating *1196the victim's mother and would spend time daily at the apartment.
On one occasion, when the victim was nine years old, he was watching television in the bedroom he shared with his mother when the defendant came into the room to play wrestle. The defendant then took his penis out, rubbed it on the victim's arm, and tried to rub it near the victim's mouth. The victim tried to push away from the defendant. The victim's mother entered *184the room and asked what the defendant was doing. Both the defendant and the victim said that the defendant was not doing anything. The victim did not tell his mother what the defendant did to him because "it just felt weird and she wouldn't have believed me anyways," and "she would take his side over mine sometime."
The defendant lived with his mother and would bring the victim to his house to play with another of the defendant's children. On one such occasion, the victim, who was ten years old at the time, was in the basement at the defendant's house when the defendant told the victim to come near him and to pull his pants down and lie on the bed. The defendant pulled his pants down, spit on his hand, rubbed his penis, and anally penetrated the victim. When the victim tried to sit up to get away, the defendant laid the victim against the bed face down and held him down. The victim made a whining noise, and the defendant told him to "shut up." The defendant ejaculated into the victim's anus. After this incident, the victim was in pain and would see blood when he used the bathroom. The victim did not tell his mother what happened because he did not think she would believe him. The defendant anally penetrated the victim on more than twenty occasions when the victim was ten years old. The victim did not tell anyone the defendant was doing this because he "didn't want anyone to think [he] was gay ...." The defendant offered to give and gave the victim toys and money in exchange for letting the defendant perform these acts.
The defendant fathered a child with a woman who lived in Windsor, and the defendant would bring the victim to visit that child at the woman's home (Windsor home). On one occasion before Christmas when the victim was eleven or twelve, the defendant bought the victim an iPod and told the victim "now you have to let me fuck you." The defendant drove the victim to the parking lot of the Windsor home and covered the *185back seat windows of the car. The defendant spit on his hand, rubbed his penis, and anally penetrated the victim. The defendant ejaculated, and then drove the victim home and told the victim to tell his mother that they were loading the defendant's truck. Between November, 2009 and January, 2011, the defendant continued to anally penetrate the victim, and did so more than ten times in the parking lot of the Windsor home.
On one occasion, when the victim was thirteen years old, the defendant asked the victim's mother if he could take the victim to help him load his truck. The defendant took the victim to a motel in Windsor Locks, showed the victim pornography on the television and told the victim "to do the same thing that's in the porno." The defendant again spit on his hand, rubbed his penis, and anally penetrated the victim. On another occasion, the defendant put his penis into the victim's mouth and ejaculated into his mouth. Afterward, the defendant bought the victim a BB gun.
In April or May, 2013, the victim told his mother what the defendant was doing to him, but when his mother said she would call the cops, the victim said "never mind." The victim, wanting the abuse to stop and in an attempt to break up the defendant and his mother, also told his mother that *1197the defendant was "cheating on her," and testified that he "was cheating on her with me really."
On one occasion in August, 2013, the defendant again took the victim, who was fourteen at the time, to a motel in Windsor Locks. The defendant told the victim to take off his clothes, laid the victim across the bed, and anally penetrated the victim. The incident lasted "longer than before" and "hurt more." The victim told the defendant to stop but he did not. The victim told the defendant he "was finished with it" and "wasn't doing that anymore," and the defendant laughed. After *186this incident, the victim felt a painful "bubble inside of [his] anus." He told his mother that he had hemorrhoids from a bicycle accident and asked to go to the family doctor. The victim saw Idaresit Udo, a physician, on August 21, 2013. The victim did not tell the doctor about the abuse because his mom was present. The victim went home and his symptoms worsened to the point where he experienced difficulty getting out of bed.
Also in August, 2013, the Department of Children and Families (department) became involved with the victim after receiving an anonymous report that his mother was leaving younger children alone in the home with the victim throughout the night. When the department responded to the home on or about August 26, 2013, the victim was observed to be in pain. The next day, Dante Rabb, an investigator with the department, visited the victim's home. He observed the victim lying in bed and crying in pain, saying his buttocks area hurt. Rabb asked the victim if he wanted to see a doctor and he hesitated, looked at his mother, and finally said yes. Rabb and the victim's grandmother brought him to the doctor's office. The victim's mother did not accompany them because she stated she did not have time. The victim saw Fonda Gravino, a physician, and told her that the defendant had been having anal intercourse with him. Dr. Gravino performed a physical exam and noted abrasions and ulcerations, which injuries she concluded were a result of child sexual abuse. Dr. Gravino and the victim telephoned the victim's mother and the victim told his mother that the defendant had been sexually abusing him for the past five years.
The victim's mother telephoned the Hartford Police Department to report the sexual assault, and Officer Tyrone Boland responded. Boland transported the victim from Dr. Gravino's office to the Connecticut Children's Medical Center, where he was admitted. During *187the drive, the victim told Boland that his mother's boyfriend had sexually assaulted him. While at the hospital, the victim's mother asked Rabb and Boland how long it was going to take and said that she had "things to do." Also at the hospital, the victim told others, including Rabb and Nina Livingston, a child abuse pediatrician, that the defendant had been sexually abusing him for years. Dr. Livingston diagnosed the victim with "suspected sexual abuse," and concluded that the victim's injuries were not caused by a bicycle accident. Dr. Livingston further observed symptoms of psychological distress that could have been consistent with post-traumatic stress and depression and recommended trauma-focused counseling.3 The victim remained in the hospital for almost a week, and was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. *1198After the victim was released from the hospital, he went to live with his aunt.
The defendant voluntarily submitted to interviews with both the Hartford and Windsor Police Departments, and officers from both departments submitted arrest warrant applications. Later, on December 23, 2013, members of a police fugitive task force arrived at the Windsor home, where the defendant was located. After several hours of refusing to open the door to the task force, the defendant was arrested. The defendant elected a jury trial.
During trial, the state presented the testimony of Boland and Detective Shawn Ware, both of the Hartford Police Department, and Officer Russell Winiger of the Windsor Police Department. Boland and Ware testified regarding the September 10, 2013 interview (Hartford interview). Ware testified that the defendant drove himself to the Hartford Police Department on that date.
*188Boland, Detective Danny Johnson, and Ware were present for the Hartford interview. Ware advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, and the defendant signed a waiver of rights form.4 The form was entered into *189evidence without objection from defense counsel. Ware described the defendant's demeanor during the Hartford interview, stating that he went from cooperative to standoffish. Ware testified that at no time did the defendant ever claim that the victim was lying about the allegations.5 Defense counsel did not object to Ware's testimony.
The Hartford interview was recorded and the video recording was entered into *1199evidence without objection and played for the jury. The video captured the full Hartford interview of the defendant, including the defendant's statements at the end of the recording in response to the question whether the defendant "ever took [the victim] to a hotel where there was a guy there that said to you why are you bringing a kid here in Windsor." The defendant responded that he had to "stop right now." He further stated that "[t]his is a serious accusation" and "[w]hat I say now will be used against me period. Whether I'm right or wrong right now.... [I]f I answer it wrong or incorrectly and it proved to be otherwise then, you know, how can I defend myself properly." He mentioned a lawyer, specifically stating at one point: "Can't answer it. I have to get a lawyer." At no point during the presentation of the video did *190defense counsel object. The court took a recess and then the prosecutor resumed direct examination. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Ware whether it was fair to say that the defendant never admitted during the Hartford interview that anything occurred between him and the victim.6
Boland was also present during the Hartford interview but did not question the defendant. Boland testified that the defendant answered most of the questions *191posed by Ware, but "[t]owards the end he decided he wasn't going to answer any more questions." Boland stated that the defendant did not claim during the Hartford *1200interview that the victim was lying about the allegations.7 Defense counsel did not object to Boland's testimony on this point. On cross-examination, in response to questions by defense counsel, Boland testified that the interviewing officers did not ask the defendant whether he had any sexual activity with the victim, because they "never got to that point."8 *192The state also presented the testimony of Winiger, who interviewed the defendant at the Windsor Police Department on October 10, 2013 (Windsor interview). Winiger called the defendant and asked if he would come to the police department to speak with him. The defendant drove himself to the Windsor interview. Winiger advised the defendant of his Miranda rights.9 The defendant signed a waiver of *1201rights form, which was entered into evidence without objection. Winiger testified regarding the Windsor interview, and explained *193how the interview concluded. Specifically, he testified that the defendant told him that he had a sexually transmitted disease. When Winiger told the defendant that the victim also had a sexually transmitted disease, the defendant ended the Windsor interview.10 At no time during Winiger's testimony did defense counsel object.
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of all charges. The court sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of forty-five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the state violated his constitutional right to remain silent, as set out in Doyle , by introducing evidence of his post- Miranda silence. Specifically, the defendant challenges the introduction *194of the following evidence: (1) Boland's testimony that the defendant refused to answer further questions and that he never claimed the victim was lying about the allegations; (2) Ware's testimony that the defendant refused to speak further; (3) the video recording of the Hartford interview depicting the defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney; and (4) Winiger's testimony that the defendant exercised his right to remain silent.11
"In Doyle ... the United States Supreme Court held that the impeachment of a defendant through evidence of his *1202silence following his arrest and receipt of Miranda warnings violates due process. The court based its holding [on] two considerations: First, it noted that silence in the wake of Miranda warnings is insolubly ambiguous and consequently of little probative value. Second and more important[ly], it observed that while it is true that the Miranda warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assurance is implicit to any person who receives the warnings. In such circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person's silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 189-90, 169 A.3d 264, cert. granted on other grounds, 327 Conn. 984, 175 A.3d 561 (2017) ; see also State v. Ramos , 178 Conn. App. 400, 408-409, 175 A.3d 1265 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1003, 176 *195A.3d 1195 (2018). "A Doyle violation also encompasses a prosecutor's comment upon a defendant's statement requesting an attorney.... With respect to post- Miranda warning ... silence does not mean only muteness; it includes the statement of a desire to remain silent, as well as of a desire to remain silent until an attorney has been consulted." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daugaard , 231 Conn. 195, 211, 647 A.2d 342 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1099, 115 S.Ct. 770, 130 L.Ed. 2d 666 (1995).
The defendant acknowledges that he did not preserve his Doyle claim at trial and now seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).12 "[T]he inability to meet any one prong requires a determination that the defendant's claim must fail.... The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the defendant's claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Soto , 175 Conn. App. 739, 755, 168 A.3d 605, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 970, 173 A.3d 953 (2017). The first two prongs of the Golding analysis are satisfied because the record is adequate for our review and the defendant's claim that the state violated his right to remain silent is of constitutional magnitude. See, e.g., *196State v. Lockhart , 298 Conn. 537, 580, 4 A.3d 1176 (2010). We conclude that the defendant's claim fails under the fourth prong of Golding because if there was a Doyle violation, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
" Doyle violations are ... subject to harmless error analysis.... The harmless error doctrine is rooted in the fundamental purpose of the criminal justice system, namely, to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.... Therefore, whether an error is harmful depends on its impact on the trier of fact and the result of the case.... [B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able *1203to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.... The state bears the burden of demonstrating that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.... That determination must be made in light of the entire record [including the strength of the state's case without the evidence admitted in error]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson , 150 Conn. App. 323, 358-59, 90 A.3d 1031, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 919, 94 A.3d 641 (2014) ; see also State v. Montgomery , 254 Conn. 694, 717-18, 759 A.2d 995 (2000) ( Doyle violations subject to harmless error analysis).
"A Doyle violation may, in a particular case, be so insignificant that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict without the impermissible question or comment upon a defendant's silence following a Miranda warning. Under such circumstances, the state's use of a defendant's [post- Miranda ] silence does not constitute reversible error.... The [error] has similarly been [found to be harmless] where a prosecutor does not focus upon or highlight the defendant's silence in his cross-examination and closing remarks and where the prosecutor's comments do not strike at the jugular of the defendant's story.... The cases wherein the error *197has been found to be prejudicial disclose repetitive references to the defendant's silence, reemphasis of the fact on closing argument, and extensive, strongly-worded argument suggesting a connection between the defendant's silence and his guilt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montgomery , supra, 254 Conn. at 718, 759 A.2d 995.
Our review of the record convinces us that the admission of the challenged evidence concerning the defendant's invocation of his rights was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, although there were multiple references to the defendant's invocation of his rights, the remaining considerations that factor into the analysis of harm weigh in favor of the conclusion that any claimed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we decline to decide whether the state committed a Doyle violation, and we conclude that any claimed error was harmless and would not have affected the verdict.13 See, e.g., *198State v. Francis , 83 Conn. App. 226, 236, 849 A.2d 873, cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912, 853 A.2d 529 (2004) ; see also *1204State v. Pepper , 79 Conn. App. 1, 15, 828 A.2d 1268 (2003) ("[a]ssuming without deciding that the state violated Doyle in its question posed to the defendant, we conclude that any impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"), aff'd , 272 Conn. 10, 860 A.2d 1221 (2004) ; State v. Kuranko , 71 Conn. App. 703, 711, 803 A.2d 383 (2002) ("[a]ssuming arguendo that a Doyle violation occurred" and concluding "that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt").14
Here, although the defendant's invocation of his rights was described by more than one witness and was depicted on a video presented in evidence,15 the *1205prosecutor did not thereafter focus or comment on the defendant's silence. The prosecutor made no suggestion to the jury that it should draw an inference of guilt *199based on the defendant's exercise of his Miranda rights. See State v. Bereis , 117 Conn. App. 360, 378, 978 A.2d 1122 (2009) ( Doyle violation harmless where, inter alia, no "correlation [was made] between the defendant's refusal to answer questions and her guilt"). In fact, the prosecutor made no comment on the defendant's invocation of his Miranda rights during closing argument, and did not otherwise highlight the challenged evidence to the jury. See State v. Daugaard , supra, 231 Conn. at 213, 647 A.2d 342. This is not a case in which the prosecutor made a "strongly-worded argument suggesting a connection between the defendant's silence and his guilt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cf. State v. Hughes , 45 Conn. App. 289, 292-93, 296, 696 A.2d 347 (1997) (error was not harmless where detective testified "no less than eight different times as to the defendant's request not to talk about the accusations," including that he understood the defendant's unwillingness to talk about it as "a form of guilt" and state's attorney, in closing argument, "equated the defendant's post- Miranda silence with guilt and consciousness of guilt" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Moreover, the challenged evidence was not "linked to any exculpatory story advanced by the defense." State v. Jackson , supra, 150 Conn. App. at 361, 90 A.3d 1031. The evidence that the defendant claims violated Doyle was wholly unrelated to the defendant's exculpatory theories. See State v. Camacho , 92 Conn. App. 271, 284-85, 884 A.2d 1038 (2005) (concluding that any Doyle violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that jury may have found the defendant's alibi defense "weak" because "rebuttal witnesses could not give a consistent story," and stating that prosecutor's challenged remarks "were not used to attack the defendant's alibi"), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 935, 891 A.2d 1 (2006).
Although the defendant did not testify, he called two witnesses on his behalf, the victim's mother and his wife, to advance the following defenses: (1) someone other than the defendant had engaged in anal intercourse with the victim, (2) the victim lied about who had abused him because he did not want to admit that he was gay, and (3) the defendant was out of state for work at the time of the final instance of abuse. The jury reasonably may have found these defenses weak, given the inconsistent evidence presented in support of them.
The defendant generally sought to attack the credibility of the victim through *1206the victim's mother, who opined that the victim was accusing the defendant of abuse because the victim did not want to admit that he was gay. The victim's mother also testified that she believed the victim had engaged in anal intercourse with a teenager, not with the defendant, based on Facebook messages she had seen between the victim and another teenager that indicated that the victim had engaged in anal intercourse for the first time with that teenager in August, 2013. The defendant points to this testimony as evidence "as to who could have committed this crime other than the defendant." This evidence was contradicted in two ways. First, the state presented medical evidence that the victim suffered physical injuries and psychological distress as a result of sexual abuse. Specifically, Dr. Livingston observed open sores in the area above the victim's anus. Dr. Livingston also testified that the victim demonstrated symptoms of psychological distress, including experiencing flashbacks of the abuse. On the basis of this evidence, the jury reasonably could have rejected the defense's suggestion that a first-time, consensual sexual encounter with another teenager would produce the victim's injuries. Second, the victim's mother's testimony was called into question by the six page written statement she gave to police. The victim's mother testified that she had seen the Facebook messages "[a] week or two" after August 27, 2013. She gave her statement to police on November 4, 2013, approximately two months later. Despite having made several corrections to the police statement for accuracy, she failed to mention the Facebook messages she saw. She testified that she did not provide the information regarding the Facebook messages to the police at the time of her statement because there were "too many things going on at that time" and because she "was still believing in [the victim.]"16
Through the testimony of both the victim's mother and the defendant's wife, the defendant sought to establish that he was not in the state at the time of the final sexual assault in August, 2013. The defendant's wife testified that the defendant worked as a long haul truck driver and would be out of the area for periods of time. Specifically, she testified that the defendant was away working as a long haul truck driver in August, 2013, and that he was away from home at the time of their anniversary, in July, and her birthday, in August. She testified that he did not return from these particular work trips until "maybe the first week of September." The victim's mother testified that the defendant was in Florida on a job in August, 2013. This testimony was directly contradicted by other evidence. During the Hartford interview, which was conducted on September 10, 2013, the defendant told police officers that he had not worked in a couple of months. The defendant's wife's testimony was further contradicted in that she testified that they were not separated while the defendant told police officers that they were separated.
Moreover, apart from the challenged evidence related to the defendant's post- Miranda silence, the state established the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.17 See State v. Daugaard , supra, 231 Conn. at 213, 647 A.2d 342. The victim, sixteen years old at the time of trial, testified at length and in detail regarding the assaults and consistently identified the defendant *1207as his abuser to police, to medical personnel, to department personnel, and during his testimony at trial. The victim was also able to provide locations where the abuse occurred, both during interviews with the police and during his testimony at trial. Specifically, he had made a drawing of the surroundings, including a nearby bowling alley, of the motel where the defendant had abused him, and the victim was able to identify the motel while driving around with Winiger.18 The defendant told police during the Hartford interview that he had taken the victim and the victim's mother to a birthday party at a hotel, which he said "might be past" a bowling alley. Both in her testimony and in her written statement, the victim's mother denied that the defendant had taken them to a party.
The state not only presented medical evidence that the victim had been sexually abused, but also presented evidence from which the jury reasonably could have determined the defendant was the abuser. The defendant concedes that the medical evidence "does support the claim that [the victim] was sodomized and subjected to terrible sexual abuse. It does not, however, support a claim that the defendant was the one who committed the acts." We disagree. Dr. Livingston testified that upon admission to the hospital in August, 2013, the victim, who was fourteen years old at the *1208time, was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. The state also presented evidence that the defendant told Winiger that he had tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease. The victim further testified that the defendant was the only male sexual partner he ever had.
In sum, we conclude that the admission of the challenged evidence concerning the defendant's invocation of his Miranda rights was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Most importantly, the state never referenced the challenged evidence in closing argument, nor did it otherwise use the evidence in such a way as to suggest the defendant's guilt. Moreover, here, as in State v. Daugaard , supra, 231 Conn. at 213, 647 A.2d 342, the references to the defendant's invocation of his constitutional rights were "marginal in the context of the entire trial." The references were unrelated to the defendant's defenses, which were inherently weak. Lastly, the state's case, apart from the challenged evidence, was strong. Accordingly, the defendant is unable to prevail under the fourth prong of Golding.
The judgments are affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.