We granted certiorari in this case, Anderson v. State, 199 Ga. App. 595 (405 SE2d 504) (1991), to consider two issues: the charge to the jury and the submission to the jury of written jury instructions.
1. The charge to the jury included all of the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (as did Count 1 of the accusation), although some of them were not applicable.1 Anderson was convicted of Counts 1 and 2, *27and sentenced under Count 1.
(a) Our appellate courts often have held:
“It is not usually cause for new trial that an entire Code section is given . . . even though a part of the charge may be inapplicable under the facts in evidence.” [Cits.] [Jolley v. State, 254 Ga. 624, 628 (331 SE2d 516) (1985).]2
(b) However, the Court of Appeals also has held:
Where the inapplicable instruction authorizes the jury to reach a finding of guilty by a theory not supported by the evidence of record, we cannot say as a matter of law that the charge was neither confusing nor misleading. [Stanley v. State, 153 Ga. App. 42, 47 (264 SE2d 533) (1980).]
(c) The record in this case indicates that the jury was confused about the charge.3 No remedial instruction was given, nor did the accusation clarify the charge.
2. Because “we cannot say as a matter of law that the charge was neither confusing nor misleading,” we conclude that the trial court’s charge in this case requires reversal.
3. The Court of Appeals, quoting Davis v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 163 Ga. App. 280, 282 (1) (294 SE2d 353) (1982), suggests that the submission to the jury of written jury instructions is “an irregular practice and not to be condoned.”
(a) Practices that have served adequately in former times may *28not remain forever the best. In an age of expanding technology, complete and accurate written jury charges can be created within a few minutes.
Decided February 28, 1992.
Harrison & Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison, for appellant.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, for appellee.
In Llewellyn v. State, 241 Ga. 192, 195 (243 SE2d 853) (1978), we cited with approval a United States Court of Appeals decision:
“But we think it is frequently desirable that instructions which have been reduced to writing be not only read to the jury but also be handed over to the jury. This course is required in some states, and is widely practiced. United States courts are free to follow it. We see no good reason why the members of the jury should always be required to debate and rely upon their several recollections of what a judge said when proof of what he said is readily available.” [Emphasis supplied.] [Citing Copeland v. United States, 152 F2d 769, 770 (D.C. Cir.) (cert. den. 328 U. S. 841 (66 SC 1010, 90 LE 1815) (1946)).]
(b) We do not wish that any beneficial trial process should be prohibited by an adherence to the mechanistic regimes of the past.
4. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the submission of written charges to the jury in this case is not cause for reversal.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Clarke, C. J., Benham and Fletcher, JJ., concur; Bell, J., concurs in the judgment only as to Divisions 1 and 2; Hunt, J., dissents as to Divisions 1 and 2 and the judgment.