In what circumstances will the courts interpret section 278.5 of the California Penal Code as requiring the state to prove specific intent?

In resolving such an ambiguity--assuming it exists--courts are "guided by well-settled principles of statutory interpretation. '[W]hen language which is reasonably susceptible of two constructions is used in a penal law ordinarily that construction which is more favorable to the offender will be adopted. [p] The defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute.' [Citations.]" (People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 828, 176 Cal.Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186.) These principles support the conclusion that the statute should be read to have required the state to prove specific intent in all section 278.5 cases.