What is the test for avoiding "abhorrent results" in interpreting a statute or constitutional provision?

In interpreting a statute (or a constitutional provision), we are called upon to avoid absurd results. ... Where the language of a statute is reasonably susceptible of two constructions, one which, in application, will render it reasonable, fair and harmonious with its manifest purpose, and another which will be productive of absurd consequences, the former construction will be adopted. In other words, where the meaning is doubtful, any construction which would lead to absurd results should be rejected ... since absurd results are not supposed to have been contemplated by the legislature. (Gilbert v. Chiang (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 537, 551, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 864.)