as to warrant reversal without any proof of prejudice in a particular case. Denial of the assistance of counsel during a critical stage of criminal proceedings is one such category of error. Whether the deprivation of counsel spans an entire trial or but a fraction thereof, it renders suspect any result that is obtained. Id. (quoting Perry I, 832 F.2d at 849 (Winter, C.J., dissenting)) (emphasis added). Indeed, Hawai'i courts have recognized that the Hawai'i Constitution protects certain rights “so basic to a fair trial that its contravention can never be deemed harmless.” State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 31 n. 12, 904 P.2d 912, 918 n. 12 (1995) (quoting State v. Suka, 79 Hawai'i 293, 300, 901 P.2d 1272, 1279 (App.1995)); see also State v. Bowe, 77 Hawai'i 51, 881 P.2d 538 (1994) (<HOLDING>). 2. In arriving at its holdings, the majority
holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature holding that even the admission of a coerced confession may be harmless error and noting that  the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendants guilt or innocence  holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation holding that use of a coerced confession in criminal trial would be fundamentally unfair