If a witness has been impeached as to material matters by evidence of prior inconsistent statements, then evidence of the witness's prior consistent statements is admissible to counter such impeachment. Klein, 273 S.W.3d at 316-17; Pryne v. State, 881 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1994, pet. ref'd). Extensive cross-examination that suggests that the complainant is untruthful also supports the subsequent admission of prior consistent statements.

"Bolstering" occurs when additional evidence is used to add truthfulness or greater weight to earlier, unimpeached evidence offered by the same party. Pryne v. State, 881 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1994, pet. ref'd). However, not all corroborative evidence is improper bolstering.

The error was therefore harmless. See Pryne v. State, 881 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 1994, pet. ref'd). As noted above, our holding in this regard should not been construed to express our approval of the State's actions.