Opinion By Justice LANG.
A jury convicted Bobby Charles Sears of burglary of a building and assault on a public servant. The jury also found two enhancement paragraphs true in each case, and assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment for the burglary and life imprisonment for the assault on a public servant. In three points of error, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Background At 2:20 a.m. on March 14, 2003, McKinney police officer Aaron Howell responded to a dispatch call about a burglary at the My-T-Quik convenience store. Howell, who was driving a marked patrol car, was two blocks from the store. Howell drove to the scene and saw appellant coming out of the front door. The glass in the door had been broken by a large rock. Howell saw appellant run around the corner of the building. Howell chased appellant on foot, yelling at appellant to get on the ground. Appellant continued running. Howell forced appellant to the ground face-first, jumped on appellant's back, and attempted to handcuff him. Howell testified that several boxes of cigarettes and lighters came out of appellant's shirt when appellant fell to the ground. Appellant elbowed Howell, then got up and ran. Howell chased appellant into the middle of the street. Appellant turned to face Howell and began punching Howell in the face, head, and chest. Howell testified that he was concerned for his safety because appellant was much bigger, and Howell only stood five-feet-nine and weighed 135 pounds. Howell testified that he and appellant exchanged blows while standing in the street. Then, appellant ran toward a chain-link fence. Howell chased appellant, grabbed him by the shoulder, and pushed him against the fence. Appellant head-butted Howell in the forehead. When Howell fell to the ground, appellant ran again. Howell chased appellant again and eventually sprayed pepper spray in appellant's face. Howell testified appellant did not appear to be affected by the spray. Appellant ran again. Howell tackled appellant, knocking them both to the ground. Howell testified that more cartons of cigarettes fell from appellant's shirt. Howell struggled with appellant while they were both on the ground. A concerned citizen eventually helped Howell subdue appellant. Then, other officers arrived and handcuffed appellant. Howell testified he wanted to process the crime scene at the store and the route appellant had run, so he only had paramedics treat him for the pepper spray that had gotten on him when he sprayed appellant. Howell testified he had felt pain when appellant hit him with closed fists. Howell felt dazed and "was seeing stars" when appellant head-butted him in the forehead. Howell had a large lump on his forehead the next day. Appellant was transported to the hospital via ambulance because he complained of breathing problems due to asthma. Howell later learned that tests showed appellant had cocaine in his blood at the time of his arrest. Daniel Couch testified that he was returning home from a night job when he saw a police officer and a man fighting in the street. The officer looked like he needed help, so Couch turned his vehicle around. Couch saw the man run from the officer toward a chain-link fence. Couch picked up a flashlight the officer had dropped and ran towards the officer. He saw the officer tackle the man to the ground. Couch helped the officer hold the man down while they awaited other officers. McKinney police officer Duane Long testified that when he arrived on the scene, he saw Howell sitting on appellant's back and another man sitting on appellant's legs. Long jumped on appellant's back and eventually handcuffed him. Long saw redness and swelling on Howell's forehead and hands. Officer Vincent Roberts testified that appellant was already in custody when he arrived on the scene. Roberts testified he saw a red raised area on Howell's forehead. Officer Drew Caudell testified he investigated the burglary of the convenience store. When he arrived, Caudell saw that the glass front door had been broken out by a large rock, which was still inside the store. Cartons of cigarettes were strewn inside the store, on the side of the building, and along the route the suspect had run. Caudell testified he did not see any visible injuries on Howell. Caudell testified that the cigarettes and packages of lighters and a bag of change that was found in appellant's pocket, were returned to the store owner. Gaurang Chokshi, the owner of the store, testified he had closed the store at 10:30 p.m. the night before. Chokshi testified he had never seen appellant before and did not give appellant or anyone else permission to smash open the front door with a rock and take cigarettes and lighters and coins from the cash register. Applicable Law In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Under either review, the fact finder is the exclusive judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Harvey v. State, 135 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). In the burglary case, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally and knowingly entered a building not then open to the public, and without the owner's effective consent, and committed the theft of cigarettes. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). In the assault case, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to Aaron Howell, a person appellant knew was a public servant, while Howell was lawfully discharging an official duty. See id. § 22.01. "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. See id. § 1.07(a)(8). Discussion In his first and second points of error, appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction for assault on a public servant because there was insufficient evidence of bodily injury to Howell, other officers did not see any injuries to Howell, and there were no medical records to document any injury to Howell. Appellant contends the evidence shows he resisted arrest and fled from Howell, but it does not show he assaulted Howell. The State responds the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to show appellant punched, hit, and head-butted Howell, which caused Howell bodily injury. We agree with the State. Howell testified he fought with appellant four different times as appellant tried to flee the scene of a burglary. Howell testified appellant elbowed him, hit him with closed fists, and head-butted him during Howell's attempts to take appellant into custody. Howell testified he felt pain. Although he did not seek medical attention at the time, Howell was in pain and felt sore all over his body for over a week. Couch testified he saw the officer and appellant fighting in the street and Long testified he saw redness and swelling on Howell's forehead. Having reviewed all of the evidence under the proper standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction for assault on a public servant. See Sanders, 119 S.W.3d at 820; Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 484. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error. In his third point of error, appellant argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction for burglary of a building. Appellant asserts there were no eyewitnesses who saw him in the building and nothing linked appellant to cigarettes found strewn all over the street. The State responds the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction because Howell caught appellant coming out of the building with stolen property. We agree with the State. Howell testified that when he arrived at the store in answer to a radio dispatch about a burglary, he saw that the front glass door had been smashed and saw appellant coming out of the store. Howell testified that the first time he forced appellant to the ground, cartons of cigarettes and packages of lighters came out of appellant's shirt. Further, each time Howell tackled appellant to the ground, cartons of cigarettes would come out of appellant's shirt. The jury was the exclusive judge of the facts provided and of the weight to be given to the testimony, and it was the jury's role to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Harvey, 135 S.W.2d at 717. Viewed under the proper standard, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction for burglary of a building. We overrule appellant's third point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgments.