The woman accused of killing a peacock with a baseball bat last year at Makaha appeared in court this morning to ask for dismissal of the animal-cruelty charge against her.

Sandra Maloney’s attorney argued that the statute used to charge her is vague and does not apply to peacocks.
The lawyer, Randall Oyama, also cited testimony from a zoo expert who said that the method used by Maloney to kill the bird was “humane.”
“Mrs. Maloney acted in a humane manner although it does sound cruel,” Oyama said outside court.
Oyama said that James Maloney, the defendant’s husband, had earlier contacted the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to inquire if a permit was required to kill peacocks, which roam free in Makaha Valley and have been a source of noise complaints by residents there.
Maloney was told no permit was required, Oyama said.
The department has been “telling people it’s okay, you don’t need a license to kill those birds,” said Oyama.
“That is tantamount to consent,” he said.
The cruelty to animals statute “doesn’t really specify particular animals” which are protected by the law, Oyama argued to Circuit Judge Michael Wilson.
“This is not a pet animal,” Oyama said of peacocks.
He said peacocks or peafowl fall under another classification of animals which are “nuisances, pests or vermin” which can be killed without a license.
The birds “squawk very loudly at all hours” causing “sleep deprivation” to residents in the area, the lawyer said.
“They are detrimental to human life,” he said.
Deputy Prosecutor Steve Bumanglag argued to Wilson that peacocks are not legally classified as pests and that the animal-cruelty statute does apply to them.
Wilson took the issue under advisement and said he will rule later.