The answer to that question appears to be "yes" at least in Michigan. I say appears because an appellate court this month, in People v. Gary Traver, overturned a defendant's firearm convictions because the judge not only gave improper instructions on the offenses, but also failed to read the instructions to the jury. Instead, the judge merely handed the instructions to the jurors. While it is not certain that the appellate court would have overturned the defendant's conviction only because the judge failed to read the instructions, it is clear that the appellate court believes that reciting the instructions to the jury is critical. According to the appellate court,
[t]here are important reasons that in the English and American legal traditions, jury instructions are always spoken. “Reading a complete set of instructions after the evidence ensures that the jury hears and considers all applicable law before deliberations.” State v Nelson, 1998 SD 124; 587 NW2d 439, 444 (1998). “Instruction of the jury is one of the most fundamental duties of the court and it is only through their oral delivery that the court can be assured that the jury has actually received all of the instructions.” State v Norris, 10 Kan App 2d 397, 401; 699 P2d 585 (1985).