The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld an order of protection issued against Sarita Knull, affirming the Family Court's findings regarding domestic violence. The court ruled on October 16, 2026, in the case of Robinson-Wells v. Knull (CAAP-25-0000731), which centers on allegations of abuse made by Nicole Robinson-Wells against Knull. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal protections available to victims of domestic violence in Hawaii.
The dispute began when Robinson-Wells sought an order of protection against Knull, claiming she had been a victim of domestic violence. The Family Court of the Third Circuit issued the order after an evidentiary hearing where both Robinson-Wells and an eyewitness, Joy Modisett, testified. Knull did not testify during the hearing. The Family Court found the testimonies of Robinson-Wells and Modisett credible, which led to the issuance of the protection order.
Knull appealed the Family Court's decision, arguing that the court made a mistake in finding the testimonies credible and that there were inconsistencies in their accounts. She also claimed that the court failed to consider the testimony of another witness, Perrietta Edwards-Turner, who was related to both parties. The case was then brought before the Intermediate Court of Appeals for review.
In its ruling, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court's decision. The judges emphasized that they would not question the credibility of witnesses or the weight of evidence, as this is the responsibility of the trial court. The court stated, "It is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact." The judges noted that the Family Court had substantial evidence to support its findings, particularly Modisett's testimony, which described an incident where Knull allegedly assaulted Robinson-Wells.
The court highlighted that the Family Court considered all testimonies, including that of Edwards-Turner, before reaching its conclusion. The judges found no merit in Knull's claims that the Family Court abused its discretion in issuing the order of protection. They stated, "Knull has not provided a cognizable argument that the Family Court abused its discretion in issuing the OFP."
This ruling reinforces the importance of witness credibility in cases involving domestic violence. It shows that courts will uphold protection orders when there is credible evidence supporting the claims of abuse. The decision also serves as a reminder that victims of domestic violence have legal avenues to seek protection, and the courts take such allegations seriously.
The impact of this ruling may extend beyond this specific case. It sets a precedent for how courts in Hawaii handle domestic violence cases, particularly regarding the evaluation of witness credibility and the weight of evidence. Victims may feel more empowered to come forward, knowing that their testimonies can be taken seriously and lead to legal protections.
Moving forward, Knull has the option to appeal this decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court, though it is unclear if she will pursue that route. The court's ruling in this case may influence other pending cases involving domestic violence and protection orders in Hawaii.