In what circumstances would have been prejudiced in the impeachment trial of former Attorney General Jorge Mendoza?

Given this record, we conclude Mendoza's putative testimony would not have affected the outcome of the trial. (See People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 817 [defendant who chose not to testify after his illegally-obtained statement was held admissible for impeachment was not prejudiced, "because his putative testimony would not have affected the result," at trial].) In turn, even assuming the court erred in ruling Mendoza's admission was voluntary, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.