A jury found Ronnie Bernard Brown guilty of the malice murder of Reginald Brooks. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and life sentence on the jury’s guilty verdict. Thereafter, the trial court denied Brown’s motion for new trial and he appeals, enumerating as error only the general grounds.1

Brown contends that the evidence demands a finding that he was not guilty by reason of self-defense. The State’s evidence showed the following: Although it was warm and was not raining, Brown went to a nightclub wearing a poncho-type raincoat. Underneath the raincoat, Brown concealed a shotgun. There was bad blood between Brown and Brooks. Brown removed his raincoat and fired the shotgun at Brooks. Brooks was armed, but he did not draw his weapon until after Brown had fired the shotgun. Fatally wounded, Brooks *428staggered from the rdghtclub and died. Brown dropped the shotgun and fled. Under questioning, Brown initially denied shooting Brooks. However, he eventually admitted that he shot Brooks, but claimed that he did so in self-defense. This evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof of Brown’s guilt of the malice murder of Brooks beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Judgment affirmed.