O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30 (b).Caithaml v. State, 163 Ga. App. 429, 430 (2) ( 294 S.E.2d 764) (1982). Id. Accord Moses v. State, 270 Ga. 127, 129-130 (4) ( 508 S.E.2d 661) (1998).

" (Emphasis omitted.) Caithaml v. State, 163 Ga. App. 429 (1) ( 294 S.E.2d 674). The jury in the case sub judice was instructed on the issue of entrapment. We hold that the entrapment issue was properly submitted to the jury since defendant's testimony contains evidence authorizing a conclusion that he was predisposed to commit the crime.

While the court did charge the entire section, a further reading of the charge shows that the court gave further instructions which confined the jury's consideration to the issue of possession. In such a case, there is no error. Caithaml v. State, 163 Ga. App. 429 (2) ( 294 S.E.2d 674) (1982). Judgment affirmed.

Owens v. State, 173 Ga. App. 309, 312 ( 326 S.E.2d 509) (1985). In Caithaml v. State, 163 Ga. App. 429 ( 294 S.E.2d 674) (1982), the defendant claimed that the charge tracking former Code Ann. § 79A-811, which stated it was unlawful for "any person to possess, distribute, dispense, administer, sell or possess with intent to distribute marijuana," was improper because the indictment alleged only possession. The court held such a charge does not constitute reversible error provided the court subsequently gives a definition which is applicable to the pleadings and the evidence.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict of acquittal. See Caithaml v. State, 163 Ga. App. 429 (1) ( 294 S.E.2d 674) (1982). 2.

No such remedial instructions were given in the present case, despite defense counsel's specific objection to the charge on this ground. Compare Lumpkin v. State, 249 Ga. 834 (2) ( 295 S.E.2d 86) (1982); Slack v. State, 159 Ga. App. 185 (2) ( 283 S.E.2d 64) (1981); Caithaml v. State, 163 Ga. App. 429 ( 294 S.E.2d 674) (1982). Consequently, the inclusion of the entire code section in the charge must be considered reversible error.