before the members started deliberating, the military judge gave the standard Benchbook instruction on the elements of the offense of indecent acts with a child. Bench-book, supra at 3-87-2. (R. 420) Moreover, at this time, she also gave the standard Benchbook instruction on the meaning of indecency for the purposes of this offense. However, after a member had requested particular instructions on the impact of age and related matters on the issue of indecency, she merely stated “you should consider all the evidence you have, and you’ve heard on the issue of what’s indecent.” (R. 482-483) As noted below, this instruction was clearly insufficient to permit the members to intelligently decide this unusual case. Cf. United States v. Tindoll, 16 USCMA 194, 195-96, 36 CMR 350, 351-52 (1966)(<HOLDING>). This is especially true in light of this
holding in a juryunanimity case that indecency with a child by contact is a conductoriented offense holding extraneous acts of touching of complainant and her friend were admissible in indecency with a child prosecution because defendants charged conduct was as consistent with accident as with a specific lascivious intent holding the proper unit of prosecution for indecent liberties is the number of discrete acts holding indecency instructions sufficient to determine indecent acts with a child holding military offense of indecent acts with a child must be done in presence of victim