to sentencing proceedings, it-follows that the evidentiary rules do not apply to restitution hearings. This conclusion is consistent with persuasive authority from the federal courts. The corresponding Federal Rule of Evidence provides that the rules (except for those on privilege) do not apply to “miscellaneous proceedings such as ... sentencing.” Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d). Be cause the text of the federal rule is similar to our own, we may look to federal caselaw for guidance in construing the Minnesota rule. State v. Head, 561 N.W.2d 182, 186 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. May 28,1997). Federal courts have interpreted Fed. R.Evid. 1101(d) to mean that the rules of evidence do not. apply to restitution hearings. See, e.g., United States v. Ogden, 685 F.3d 600, 606 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594, 606
holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply holding that disputes as to evidence admitted at a restitution hearing are meritless because the rules of evidence do not apply during sentencing proceedings recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings