Larry Alan Thogerson was indicted by a Cobb County grand jury on one count of criminal attempt to commit the crime of theft by taking. OCGA 16-8-2; 16-4-1. A jury found him guilty, his motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.

Construed to support the verdict, the evidence showed that Thogerson presented a forged cash refund voucher in the amount of $829.50 to a department store. The refund voucher had a nonexistent employee identification number, a nonexistent "house number," and a countersignature from an employee at a store in Memphis, Tennessee; the voucher purported to be given for merchandise never sold at the store from which it was ostensibly purchased. A department store security manager questioned Thogerson regarding the purchase, and he claimed to have obtained the refund voucher about a month before, although the voucher itself showed that it had been generated on the previous day.

This contention is without merit. The definitions contained in former Article 3 of the UCC, including the definition of "holder in due course" and "instrument," are expressly limited in their application to "this article." Former OCGA 11-3-102 (1), (2). Moreover, the definitions applicable to this article taken from other portions of the UCC are specifically enumerated. Former OCGA 11-3-102 (3). Even the general definitions applicable to the UCC as a whole are limited to use "in this title." OCGA 11-1-201. For this reason, as we observed in Calhoon v. Mr. Locksmith Co., 200 Ga. App. 618 (409 SE2d 226) (1991), definitions contained in the UCC are inapplicable to a criminal prosecution. Id. at 620 (1). "This is a criminal case, not . . . governed by the Uniform Commercial Code." Givens v. State, 216 Ga. App. 176, 177 (454 SE2d 141) (1995). Thogerson cannot require the State to prove as additional elements of a crime requirements engrafted from another, unrelated body of law.