What is the test for giving the jury an instruction that permissively informed the jury that "if" it concluded defendant fled after committing the attempted robbery, (1) evidence of flight may be considered evidence of guilt?

Second, the instruction permissively informed the jury that "if" it concluded defendant fled after committing the attempted robbery, (1) evidence of flight "may" be considered evidence of guilt, (2) the jury was to decide for itself "the meaning and importance" of defendant's flight, and (3) "by itself" flight was not enough to prove guilt. Such a "cautionary instruction . . . benefitted the defense by 'admonishing the jury to circumspection regarding evidence that might otherwise be considered decisively inculpatory.' [Citation.]" (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 254.)