How have courts interpreted the word "may" in the California Penal Code?

to decide whether they want to consider the evidence of voluntary intoxication. (See, e.g., People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 95 [noting that "the 'shall'/'may' dichotomy . . . is not a fixed rule of statutory construction. [Citations.] Moreover, unlike some codes that expressly define 'shall' as mandatory and 'may' as permissive [citations], the Penal Code provides only that '[w]ords and phrases must be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language . . . .' ( 7, subd. 16.)."].) In the context of the entire instruction, the use of "may" together with "only" conveys a restricted permission or authorization, instructing the jurors that they are permitted to consider the evidence of intoxication only for the specific purpose of deciding whether defendant possessed the requisite mental state and for no other purpose.