What is the test for a court to interpret section 29.4 of the California Penal Code in a criminal defendant's favor?

resolve doubts as to the meaning of a statute in a criminal defendant's favor" ( People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1 ), requires this court to interpret section 29.4 in defendant's favor. Even assuming the rule applies to a statute, like section 29.4, that only regulates the extent to which evidence of voluntary intoxication may negate a required mental state, we disagree. "[T]he rule applies only when two reasonable interpretations of a penal statute stand in relative equipoise. [A]lthough true ambiguities are resolved in a defendant's favor, an appellate court should not strain to interpret a penal statute in defendant's favor if it can fairly discern a contrary legislative intent. " ( People ex rel. Green v. Grewal (2015) 61 Cal.4th 544, 565, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 686, 352 P.3d 275.) Here, we can fairly discern a legislative intent not to permit evidence of voluntary intoxication to support a claim of unreasonable self-defense.