THE FORMER NEW MEXICO RAPE LAW SPECIFICALLY MANDATED THAT RESISTANCE HAD TO BE PROVED FOR CONVICTION. THE 1975 LAW ATTEMPTED TO REFORM THIS ELEMENT OF RAPE PROSECUTION BY DROPPING THE RESISTANCE REQUIREMENT. COURTS ARE URGED NOT TO UNDO WHAT THE NEW LEGISLATURE HAS ACCOMPLISHED BY RULING THAT PROOF OF RESISTANCE MUST BE OFFERED. THE LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY TRIED TO REFORM BOTH THE CORROBORATION REQUIREMENT AND THE USE OF PAST SEXUAL CONDUCT IN TRIAL TESTIMONY. THE REASONS WHY CORROBORATION MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE ARE REVIEWED, AS ARE MISUSE OF PRIOR SEXUAL HISTORY TO DISCREDIT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM. IT IS POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT IN NEW MEXICO ONLY THE COURTS CAN CHANGE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT IS URGED TO TAKE THESE TWO MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH NEEDED REFORM. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL CONDUCT MAY BE ADMITTED ONLY IF 'RELEVANT,' BUT THAT THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE WAY TRIAL JUDGES HAVE INTERPRETED 'RELEVANCE.' THE APPROACHES USED IN MICHIGAN AND CALIFORNIA TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES ARE EXAMINED. NEW MEXICO IS URGED TO FIND WAYS TO PROTECT THE VICTIM AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT. THE ARTICLE IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED WITH CASE CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES. (GLR)